In the administrative litigation case, even if the defendant's participation by the intervenor does not constitute a third party's participation in the lawsuit under Article 16 of the Administrative Litigation Act, in light of the nature of the administrative litigation such as the effect of the judgment on the intervenor, such participation is also an intervention in the co-litigation under Article 78 of the Civil Procedure Act (see Supreme Court Decision 4294Da172 delivered on May 17, 1962, etc.), and in case where the intervenor who participated in the co-litigation legally files an appeal and filed the appellate brief within the submission period, even if the defendant's appellate brief was not timely filed, the submission of the appellate brief shall be deemed lawful.

According to the records, the intervenor filed an application for intervention with the defendant on August 18, 2010, when the lawsuit of this case against the plaintiff against the defendant was pending in the court of first instance. The presiding judge of the court of first instance had the intervenor participate in the lawsuit of this case without going through a third party's participation procedure as stipulated in Article 16 of the Administrative Litigation Act and had the intervenor participate in the lawsuit of this case and conduct procedural acts as the intervenor as the intervenor. The intervenor filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below within the period of appeal, but the defendant did not raise an appeal. The notice of receipt of the records of the appeal of this court was served on the defendant on December 8, 201 and on December 9, 2011, and the intervenor filed the appellate brief on December 29, 201.

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, in this case where it cannot be deemed that a third party participation under Article 16 of the Administrative Litigation Act was made, in view of the nature of the administrative litigation, such as that the effect of the judgment of this case also affects the intervenors, the intervenor is in the position of co-litigation assistant intervenor. If the intervenor has lawfully filed a final appeal within the period of the final appeal and filed the final appeal within the period of the final appeal, and if the intervenor filed the final appeal within the period of the final appeal, it shall be deemed lawful even if the defendant, who is

Ultimately, it cannot be deemed that the appellate brief of this case was filed after it was not timely filed.

2. The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 are examined together.

Upon examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below is just in holding that the transfer of this case is unfair because the intervenor abused discretion on personnel affairs, and that the dismissal of this case is unfair because it did not exist because it did not violate the rules of logic and experience as to the plaintiff's duty of attendance at work, and it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of the transfer order, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of the transfer order, which affected the validity of the transfer of this case.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the Intervenor joining the Defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice)