2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) As to the experience Nos. 1, 6, and 8 in the instant disposition, the grounds for disposition are nonexistent as follows. A) As to the experience in the instant period, the Plaintiff was in charge of construction during the pertinent period, or the difference in the participation period is within 60 days, and as to the experience in Nos. 7 and 8, the Plaintiff performed on-site inspection and guidance, each of the above experience records are not false.

B) Of the career experience in the instant case, the Plaintiff merely made an erroneous report by mistake on the date of personnel transfer, and even if it differs from the construction site, the Plaintiff was performing another road construction site management business, and thus, the above career experience is not false. 2) The period of false experience reported by the Plaintiff as a deviation abuse of discretionary power is short-term, and the Plaintiff is dependent on memory.

Considering the fact that the career was reported differently by mistake in the personnel transfer date, and the fact that false career was not affected by the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the Plaintiff’s professional engineer qualification, the instant disposition was abused and abused the disadvantage suffered by the Plaintiff compared to the public interest that violates equity and achieve.

(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

C. Article 2-2 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court below concerning the absence of a ground for disposition 1

C. (1) Paragraph (c) (the part 5 to 16 of the judgment of the court of first instance) is as follows, and "as to the career experience Nos. 2 through 6 among the career experience of this case" in Section 17 of the 8th page "."