1. The Intervenor’s appeal is dismissed.

2. The appeal cost includes the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. The first instance court, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on the unfair dismissal and rendered a judgment citing the Plaintiff’s claim on the part of unfair labor practices among the judgment of the first instance, and the intervenor filed an appeal against the part against the Defendant, which is limited to the part of unfair labor practices among the judgment of the first instance.

The reasoning of this Court concerning this case is as follows, and this Court’s reasoning is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the scope of the above judgment, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article

[Supplementary judgment] The plaintiff asserts to the purport that it is unlawful for the plaintiff to file an appeal to the effect that the plaintiff's subsequent appeal constitutes "where the intervenor's procedural acts violate the intervenor's procedural acts" under Article 76 of the Civil Procedure Act, even though the defendant renounced his/her appeal by not filing an appeal within the time limit for filing an appeal

In the public health-based administrative litigation case, even if the defendant's participation by the intervenor does not fall under a third party's participation under Article 16 of the Administrative Litigation Act, the judgment's effect also extends to the intervenor, and in light of the nature of the administrative litigation, such participation is a co-litigation supplementary participation as stipulated in Article 78 of the Civil Procedure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du30069, Nov. 29, 2012). If the intervenor who participated in the co-litigation has filed an appeal within the time limit for appeal after being served with the written notice of the first instance judgment, if the time limit for appeal against the defendant who is the party for the intervention has expired

Furthermore, the defendant did not waive the appeal in the court of the first instance, and made it clear that the defendant does not intend to withdraw the appeal.

According to this, the plaintiff's above assertion is accepted.