재심판정 취소 청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, citing the instant case, is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts and the part emphasizing at the court of first instance as to the matters emphasizing at the court of first instance, and thus, this shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 42
[Supplementary part] On 12 pages 12 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Appellant is regarded as an intervenor.
In the first instance judgment, the first instance judgment’s 13 pages 13 is deemed to be “a participant”.
In the first instance judgment, the first instance judgment’s 13th 11th e.g. “B Nos. 2 through 10” means “B Nos. 2 through 4, 6 through 10.”
【Supplementary Decision】
A. Articles of online media companies, including Plaintiff’s assertion D, are operated based on a system that helps to efficiently manage various contents constituting an Internet website. As such, an engineer’s entry of his/her ID and fashion into the management system and access to the management system can be conducted.
Therefore, By Line, the Intervenor’s Ba: An article indicated in this article’s name at the end of the article of the newspaper, magazine, etc., which was sent to D, means that the Intervenor directly connected to D’s user account and sent the article to D’s online market, and the Intervenor’s automatic input of the article sent by another person is not possible.
The grounds for the first disciplinary action against the Intervenor who sent an article for D by double employment with the Plaintiff and D are recognized. Since such double employment of the Intervenor constitutes a serious violation of the rules of death, it is justifiable to dismiss the instant disciplinary action.
B. The evidence alone submitted by the Plaintiff to the first instance court and the first instance court is sufficient to conclude that the Intervenor directly connects the Intervenor’s account to the Intervenor’s user account. From November 21, 2016 to December 28, 2016.