1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. A. Around January 6, 2005, the Plaintiff was a company established for the purpose of fire-fighting system management business, etc., and registered the fire-fighting system management business to the Defendant around January 20, 2005.

B. On September 4, 2015, the Plaintiff concluded a contract on the vicarious performance of fire safety control with C, the representative of the “B” kindergarten (hereinafter “instant kindergarten”) falling under the objects of fire safety control among the specific fire-fighting objects.

The content of the contract was that the plaintiff conducted an operation function inspection and a comprehensive precise inspection while vicariously performing fire safety control duties of the kindergarten of this case and received monthly fees in return therefor.

C. On January 28, 2016, the Plaintiff reported the result of the inspection under Article 25(2) of the Fire Prevention and Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems Act (hereinafter “Fire-Fighting Systems Act”).

The Plaintiff filed a report on the results of the inspection of the operation function of fire-fighting systems, etc. (hereinafter “the instant report”) under Article 19(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Fire-Fighting System Act, and stated that the report was conducted by the Plaintiff using the inspectors of five (D, E, F, G, and H) on January 3, 2016 for the instant kindergarten.

Article 34(1)2 of the Fire-Fighting Facilities Act and Article 44 and [Attachment Table 8] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act on May 24, 2016, on the ground that the Defendant submitted to the Plaintiff a false report on the result of the inspection on the operation function of the instant kindergarten on January 3, 2016, on the ground that “the Plaintiff did not inspect the operation function of the instant kindergarten and prepared a false report.”

2. Individual standards:

C. (2) Based on subparagraph (2), the notice was given that “a warning (Corrective Order)” was issued.

(hereinafter "Notification of this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 5, Eul evidence No. 1 (including virtual numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.