1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. As to the instant case cited by the judgment of the court of first instance, the reasoning of this court is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the plaintiff's argument and its judgment to the court of first instance as stated in the following 2.

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's personnel position and credibility with respect to the plaintiff is lacking. 1) The plaintiff did not receive personnel experience in 2006 to 2008, which is a period of 2009 to 2008, from August 2003 to December 2008, and did not reflect the criteria for selection of personnel management and layoffs. The plaintiff was promoted with excellent points from the personnel management department in 2009, and the defendant's promotion rules, etc., the plaintiff cannot trust the personnel status and division (64.3%) with respect to the plaintiff who was the criteria for selection of the person subject to layoffs. 2) In selecting the person subject to layoffs, the plaintiff's personnel management and the above criteria were reflected only for the year 2009, excluding the period of the plaintiff's activities to E.

The written evidence Nos. 9, 10, and 11 (including a number number), alone, was operated by the personnel management department for the plaintiff who was selected as a person subject to layoff in 2009.

It is insufficient to recognize the assertion that it is not reliance or reliance.

On the other hand, the plaintiff's written evidence Nos. 32 and his written opinion on the plaintiff's application for the submission of documents to the purport of the whole statement of evidence Nos. 32 and the plaintiff's written opinion are as follows: F, G, H's personnel records table, and the defendant's 209 personnel records and judgment table (the plaintiff has no own signature in the F, G's personnel records table) against the plaintiff's 6-class workers in the defendant's C production department. However, there is no evidence supporting the plaintiff's above assertion, while there is no evidence supporting the plaintiff's above assertion, it is necessary to evaluate multiple workers, and their respective personnel records and their seals are affixed thereto.