1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant as to the defendant defendant D and E is revoked, and the above revoked part is revoked.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the judgment and conclusion of the intervenor D and E are modified. Thus, this is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and Article 420 of the

2. On the 3rd page of the first instance judgment, the part written by the Intervenor B, C, and the 23th page of the same month are as follows: “The Intervenor D, and E, on January 17, 2015; March 13, 2015; and “ June 4, 2015,” respectively, in the said 13th page of the same part, as “ May 28, 2015.”

On the 7th page of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the 10th instance, “The interval between each direction is about about 1 hour and 30 minutes,” shall be deleted.

Nos. 15, 12, 19, and 5 of the first instance judgment shall be followed as follows.

B) The existence of the grounds for disciplinary action (the grounds for the second dismissal of the instant disciplinary action) (the grounds for the disciplinary action are as follows: (a) the Intervenor D and E have worked for a number of eight hours per day, which is longer than the hours prescribed in the employment contract, for the removal of food waste in wooden M and N apartment areas, which are located in the area in charge from December 2, 2014; (b) however, the said Intervenor was discharged without collecting all the food waste in the area in charge from January 12, 2015 to January 23, 2015, by giving notice that he/she will work only six hours as specified in the employment contract and by performing only six hours on Sundays.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff issued instructions and warnings to the above intervenors to remove all the food waste in the area in charge five times, but the above intervenors neglected them. The Plaintiff received warnings to the effect that the instant agreement may be terminated if the Plaintiff did not collect food waste twice from Mapopo City, due to the failure to remove food waste caused by the foregoing intervenors’ food waste.

The above actions by Intervenor D and E are rules of employment.