2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

A. The Plaintiff was appointed as a public official of local civil service on April 18, 1988, and from May 20, 1989, the Plaintiff performed the work of preparing and issuing a drawing of urban planning (making, public notice, and cadastral notice) within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of the Incheon Metropolitan City.

B. After retirement from office on September 30, 2008, the Plaintiff reported the career of construction engineer to C Association on November 21, 2008, including that “The Plaintiff reported the career of construction engineer from May 20, 198 to October 21, 1991.”

(c) On March 9, 2018, the Mayor of Incheon Metropolitan City requests correction as it is doubtful that the Plaintiff’s construction expertise was false, as follows, to the Association:

‘Notice' made a notification to the effect that it is.

Contents of Association Report: D Housing Site Development Project draft of urban planning (period from May 20, 1989 to October 21, 1991) other than the draft of D Housing Site Development Project: Dispatching on January 28, 1991

D. On October 16, 2018, the Defendant filed a false report on the Plaintiff’s career in violation of Article 24(1)1 of the Construction Technology Promotion Act (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) with respect to the suspension of business for six months against the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant prior disposition”. Details of violation: False report on construction technology career ( false report on construction technology career in the C Association on November 21, 2008 on the draft of urban planning other than the draft of D Housing Site Development Services): Articles 21 and 24(1)1 of the Construction Technology Promotion Act, Article 20 and attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and Article 20 and attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act: Six months of business suspension (from October 29 to April 28, 2019).

E. On October 23, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking the revocation of the instant prior disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission.

In light of the fact that the above committee is recognized as the grounds for disposition, but it does not affect the plaintiff's qualification even if it excludes the false career period, and the possibility that the plaintiff reported the career period by mistake cannot be ruled out, the defendant does not reduce the disposition.