1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is as stated in the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment as to the plaintiff's assertion of the first instance, which is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation

2. Additional determination

A. Article 53(1) of the Plaintiff’s alleged construction technology promotion Act provides that penalty points shall be imposed only where defective construction works occur or are likely to occur due to a failure to faithfully perform construction supervision. In light of the fact that the columns of underground parking lots adjoining gas pressure construction sites are structural stability because there are many heavy loads, and that the proportion of gas pressure construction works is extremely limited to the total steel volume, and that the Plaintiff’s quality test on the remainder of gas pressure construction works is not found on October 12, 2018, and the remainder of construction works are conducted without any need for additional construction, the instant disposition imposing penalty points to the Plaintiff on a different premise is unlawful since there is no ground for such disposition.

B. The term “non-performing construction” under Article 53(1) of the Construction Technology Promotion Act means that a building itself or its construction work causes damage to the safety of another person’s body or property by performing construction work contrary to the general common sense, etc. as a constructor of various Acts and subordinate statutes, design documents, construction practices, such as the Building Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2000Da5859, Jun. 12, 2001; 201Du29069, Jan. 29, 2014). However, even in such a case, it does not constitute a non-performing construction work only where the risk, such as the occurrence of a safety problem at a building or construction site, is realized due to the damage to safety

Supreme Court Decision 200