1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition - Examination subjects;

1. theory of industrial safety management;

2. Industrial psychology and education;

3. Human engineering and system safety engineering;

4. Construction time engineering;

5. Construction materials;

6. Method of verifying construction safety technology- 40 points or more for each subject and average of 60 points or more for all subjects, based on the full marks of 100 points for each subject, 20 points or more for each 10-point selective type (30 percent for each subject);

A. On March 8, 2015, the Defendant carried out a first written test of construction safety engineer (hereinafter “instant test”) on a regular engineer’s date in March 2015. The details are as follows.

The average score of the overall point of construction material construction and safety technology when constructing the subject industry safety management theory, industrial psychology and educational human engineering, and system safety engineering, 65 70 35 35 85 65 80 406.66

B. On March 20, 2015, the Plaintiff applied for the instant examination, and on the ground that the Defendant failed to pass the examination (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the grounds that it fell short of the standard that the Plaintiff should obtain at least 40 points per subject.

Among the following problems, the level of lighting that is most suitable for ordinary mechanical operations or letter, is ① 30fcc. ② 100fcc. ③ 300fcc. ④ 500fcc. ② Meanwhile, the questions and answers given from the human engineering and system safety engineering subjects of the instant examination to A type No. 47 (B-57) (hereinafter “instant examination questions”) are as follows, and the answers written at the Plaintiff’s answer note was ③.

C. On March 23, 2015, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on July 7, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. According to Article 6 of the Plaintiff’s argument measurement Act, it is permitted to enter a nonlegal unit into the legal unit, but it is not possible to indicate only the nonlegal unit without the legal unit. The examination issue of this case is limited to the nonlegal unit.