2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

A. The reasoning for this case is identical to that of the judgment of the court of the first instance, except for the addition of the following, and thus, this case is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. The following is added following the 10th day of the first instance judgment.

The Plaintiff asserts to the purport that, according to the guidance on the opportunity to explain relevant to the meeting of the personnel committee and the deliberation of disciplinary action (Evidence No. 13, No. 6) in the trial of the party, the Intervenor was wrong in making a disciplinary decision by adding the disciplinary grounds to the act of refusing to comply with the Plaintiff’s request for investigation, which was not included in the above guidance, even though the Plaintiff initially promoted the deliberation on disciplinary action on June 26, 2014, and accordingly, the Plaintiff did not provide the Plaintiff with an opportunity to vindicate and present explanatory materials as to the refusal of

Pursuant to Article 11(1) of the Internal Audit Regulations, the Health Unit Intervenor demanded the Plaintiff to appear on July 1, 2014 with an excursion ship, July 2, 2014, and July 4, 2014 at each designated date and time in writing, and demanded the Plaintiff to appear on July 8, 2014 and July 9, 2014. However, the Plaintiff’s refusal to appear on the reply to the written question by the Audit Board.

The intervenor has notified that the disciplinary committee will be held as an agenda item and provided an opportunity to vindicate that "the deliberation on the disciplinary action related to unsound notices on the bulletin board" through the guidance on the opportunity to explain about the opening of the personnel committee and the deliberation on disciplinary action (No. 13, No. 6). In light of the overall progress of the disciplinary action procedure in this case, it is reasonable to view that the subject of the deliberation on disciplinary action includes the refusal to comply with the request for investigation directly related to the act of registration.

On July 9, 2014, the Plaintiff continued to comply with the investigation by examining the written questions related to the investigation of the grounds for disciplinary action(Evidence B(Evidence B(4).