1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is as follows, except for the corresponding part among the judgment of the court of first instance, and is the same as the part of the “1. Ground for Disposition” stated in 2-3 pages of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The following two pages 1 / [Attachment 1] The “the instant transfer inspection” (hereinafter referred to as “the instant transfer inspection”) shall be added to the right side of the “working.”

Under 2 to 3-4, the term “former Construction Technology Management Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply)” was completely amended by the former Construction Technology Management Act (Act No. 11794, May 22, 2013).

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as stated in the three-dimensional summary of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Therefore, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The following shall be added between 3 and 2:

4) On October 1, 2017, with respect to a construction engineer who was found to have falsely reported his career in the instant transfer investigation, and for whom the fact that he had falsely reported his career in the instant transfer investigation was not discovered, the Defendant operated the exemption system from the disposition of business suspension through voluntary report, but did not apply the aforementioned exemption system to the Plaintiff who did not have any essential difference with those of the Plaintiff, as well as the mitigation standard pursuant to the “whether there was any danger or injury to the public”, and thus, the said disposition is inconsistent with the principle of equality.

A person shall be appointed.

B. It is as stated in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

(c)the facts of recognition are found by this Court;