1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

It is reasonable to find facts as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance and make a decision based thereon, which is the same as the examination of the evidence submitted by the plaintiff in the appellate court in addition to the evidence submitted by the court of first instance. Thus, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is cited for the reason of this judgment in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act,

First of all, the plaintiff, from March 7, 2005 to July 13, 2007, during which he completed the middle school course in China, established and operated D in the scope that does not interfere with the performance of full-time service with respect to the natural cosmetics of Ycheon-do as a full-time employee from December 2004 to June 2009. Thus, even though the contents of the certificate of employment with respect to B are all true, it is limited to the fact that B did not reach the prosecution's assertion that the frequent entry into and departure from the Republic of Korea is problematic, and therefore, the plaintiff is a child of the head of the commercial state financial resources or its subsidiary, and therefore, the revocation of the admission of this case is invalid.

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited as the aforementioned ground for recognition, unlike the above alleged facts by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s attached document was convicted of the crime of interference with business by fraudulent means as to the Plaintiff’s submission to the Defendant’s school by obtaining a false certificate of employment as to the tenure of office on the original original natural cosmetics, and the Plaintiff’s submission to the Defendant’s school as a foreign national residing abroad (commercial financial resources) and recognized the qualification for admission to the Defendant’s school. The Plaintiff only supported the screening of “foreign working overseas children” and submitted necessary documents in the special screening of this case, and otherwise did not support the screening of “other foreign working overseas children” or submit necessary documents.