1. The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant and the incidental costs of appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited this case, is that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is stated in the reasoning of the judgment, except for the case where the defendant and the plaintiff are deemed to have been repeatedly emphasized as the grounds for appeal and incidental appeal in the court of first instance as the grounds for appeal, and thus, it is also acceptable as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The Defendant’s assertion and judgment 1) ① The comprehensive evaluation score of the public official’s work schedule is the sum of the evaluation of work performance (50 points), the evaluation of work performance performance (50 points), the evaluation of performance performance (50 points), the examination of good faith points, and the examination marks. Inasmuch as the Plaintiff received 100 points during the period subject to the evaluation from May 1, 2016 to October 31, 2016, it naturally does not have any items subject to the examination of good faith points and the examination of marks. Furthermore, if the Plaintiff received the reduction points during the evaluation period, it appears in the comprehensive examination points, and is reflected in the work performance points, and thus, it is not necessary to disclose information on such points. Therefore, there is no need to disclose. ② If the intermediate process prior to the completion of the examination and decision by the Work Performance Evaluation Committee is disclosed, it would impede the fair personnel management of the Work Performance Evaluation Committee’s work, and the Defendant’s overall evaluation of the Plaintiff’s performance points and the part of the evaluation points (5).