1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal, including the costs of supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as follows, except for the addition of Paragraph 2 below to the judgment supplementing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to the assertion that the plaintiff emphasizes again in the trial of the court of first instance, and thus, it is consistent with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 4

2. The addition;

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the instant personnel order does not constitute an occupational necessity, but rather the Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor Company”) made a false report to the U.S. military supervisor as to the Plaintiff’s objection type, pro rata behavior, etc., and accordingly, the U.S. military supervisor demanded the Plaintiff to conduct an unfair inspection and interview with the U.S. military supervisor, and the Plaintiff entered the Intervenor company to carry out the U.S. military base security duties. In light of the fact that the Intervenor issued the instant personnel order to work in an apartment building other than the U.S. military base without the Plaintiff’s consent or prior consultation with the labor union, the Intervenor company is unreasonable.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s failure to work without complying with the personnel order of this case does not constitute absence without permission, and the judgment of this case was unlawful on different premise.

B. (1) First of all, the determination of the personnel order of this case is that the personnel order of this case was derived from the U.S. military supervisor’s false report to the Plaintiff, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and even if C has made a false report to the U.S. military supervisor like the Plaintiff’s assertion, the personnel order of this case cannot be deemed to be unfair in light of the following circumstances, which can be seen by considering the overall purport of the pleadings as a whole in light of the written evidence Nos. 5 and 6.

(A) Regulation 190-56 of the Army Regulation 190-56 of the U.S.A. military supervisor at any time to determine the suitability of workers' work.