1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. Of the appeal costs, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is the Defendant.

1. The grounds alleged by the Defendant and the Intervenor in the trial of the first instance do not significantly differ from the already asserted contents in the trial of the first instance. However, even if the evidence submitted by the Defendant and the Intervenor in the trial of the first instance takes account of the allegations and the grounds that partly supplemented by the Defendant and the Intervenor, and the evidence submitted in the first instance trial showed the entries and the result of the oral argument at the trial of the Party, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff is liable to the extent that the Plaintiff is unable to continue to maintain an employment relationship by social norms, even if the evidence submitted by the Intervenor is different from the evidence submitted in the trial of the first instance.

Therefore, the court's reasoning for this case is as follows: ① 10th 7th 7th 7th 10th son's judgment "AC" part of the court's 5th 5th 5th son's "A" part of the evidence Nos. 2, 5 through 9, 16, 17th 5th son's evidence Nos. 2, 4 through 9, 17, 86th son's evidence Nos. 2, 2, and 6th son's evidence"; ③ "compliance" of the last 12th son's 16th son's 12th son's son's son's son's son's eth son's son's eth son's son's son's eth son's son's eth son's son's eth son's eth eth eth.

2. Determination as to the main defense in the trial of the defendant and the intervenor

A. As long as the intervenor alleged in the summary of the defendant's assertion against the plaintiff on December 31, 2013 against the plaintiff on the same ground as the removal from the position of this case, the removal from the position of this case was invalidated, so there is no interest to seek revocation from the plaintiff.

B. The judgment of removal 1 is a disposition that maintains the status of employee as it is, but does not assign only the position.