1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a local government that performs autonomous affairs and affairs delegated by the State and local governments to promote the rights and welfare of residents by employing more than 800 full-time workers, such as public officials and contract-based workers. On December 24, 2002, according to the Framework Act on Volunteer Service Activities and the Ordinance on Support for Volunteer Service Activities in the Military, a military volunteer center (hereinafter “instant center”) is established and operated to perform projects for the development, encouragement, connection, cooperation, etc. of volunteer service activities.

The center of this case consists of one head of the center, one head of the secretariat, one head of the team, and four to five employees, such as the head of the team, the head of the team, and the person in charge, regardless of the class, all employees work in a single space, and perform volunteer activities, such as holding volunteer competitions, under linkage and cooperation with the two thousand volunteers and volunteer organizations in the A military area.

B. On December 26, 2002, an intervenor is a person who had been employed by the Secretary General to perform the duties of examining the performance of volunteer service activities.

C. On April 29, 2016, the Plaintiff held a personnel committee and decided to take disciplinary action against the intervenors on the following grounds: ① With respect to the occurrence of civil petitions due to the omission of data on examination of the performance of volunteer activities by C Fire Brigade (hereinafter “instant fire brigade”) (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 1”); ② the violation of the command system due to the superior’s failure to comply with his/her official instructions; ② the failure to perform his/her duties; ③ the failure of his/her superior’s instructions; and ③ the failure to perform his/her duties; etc. without permission (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 2”); and the failure to perform his/her duties without permission; and the failure to perform his/her duties without permission (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 3”); on May 11, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor of disciplinary action on the grounds of disciplinary reasons as follows.

(hereinafter “instant dismissal”). The intervenor on December 26, 2002