1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 20, 1993, the Plaintiff registered a landscape construction business and filed a new report on the standards for registration of a construction business every time the registration period expires, and filed the second report (hereinafter “instant report”). On July 8, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a report on B registered as the representative director of the Plaintiff on the corporate register as at the time of the Plaintiff’s representative.

B. Meanwhile, in the instant report, B reported as the representative director on July 20, 204, was appointed as the Plaintiff’s representative director. On January 15, 2009, the Changwon District Court was sentenced to a suspension of the execution of four months of imprisonment for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving) and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time. This constitutes a ground for disqualification for construction business registration under Article 13(1)4 of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry (amended by Act No. 9875, Dec. 29, 2009; hereinafter “former Act”).

C. Accordingly, on December 22, 2009, the Defendant publicly announced the results of the acceptance of report that the instant report was inappropriate for B’s representative (hereinafter “the results of the instant acceptance of report”), and notified the Plaintiff thereof. On December 22, 2009, the Defendant issued a disposition to cancel the Plaintiff’s registration of construction business as of January 1, 2010 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 5, 6, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Although the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 was registered as the representative director on the Plaintiff’s corporate register, B is merely an employee of D operated by C, a real operator of the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff Company and C are only through the acceptance of the report of this case on the wind that B did not notify the Plaintiff of the result of its criminal trial.