건설기술자 업무정지처분 취소 청구
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is working in Seoul Matro from September 1, 1981 to December 31, 2007.
A retired person is a construction engineer who has qualifications for construction works prescribed in the relevant statutes.
B. On September 2017, the Government Government Government Government Government Government Policy Coordination Coordination Monitoring Group requested the Seoul Transport Corporation (Seoul Matro and Seoul Metropolitan Government Urban Railroad Corporation was established after merger with Seoul Matro on May 31, 2017) to verify the Plaintiff’s career experience when carrying out the Government’s joint control over the falsity of career reported by construction engineers retired from public institutions and administrative agencies (hereinafter “instant control”).
The Seoul Transport Corporation (attached Form 1) shall confirm the fact that seven reporting experience (hereinafter referred to as “the experience of this case”) with respect to the plaintiff is different from the fact (the classification by improper reasons for irregular reasons): If reporting the performance of duties, such as cancellation of positions, dispatch, leave of absence, etc. - If reporting the performance of other agencies (departments): Category B: If reporting the performance of the relevant project: If participating in the relevant project, but not reflecting the personnel movement between departments: If reporting the degree of responsibility for the case of participating in the relevant project in higher class - if reporting the degree of responsibility for the relevant project as construction supervision or service supervision is reported: Where there is any other reason other than the above type: Category B, Category 6, Category 1, and the F Association requested the F Association to delete it, and then it is requested the defendant to take administrative measures in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes.
C. On October 25, 2018, the Defendant reported the Plaintiff’s career of this case on the ground that the Plaintiff falsely reported on December 24, 2008, Article 6-4(1)1 of the former Construction Technology Management Act (amended by Act No. 9848, Dec. 29, 2009); Article 4-4(1) [Attachment 2] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Construction Technology Management Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 113, Apr. 6, 2009).