1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as follows, and the reasoning of this court's ruling is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification of part of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, the reasoning of this court's explanation of this case is accepted pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

All the parts written in the judgment of the first instance shall be corrected to to to “a witness of the first instance trial”; the second part of the judgment of the second instance shall be corrected to “a witness of the second instance”; and the second part of the judgment of the first instance to “a witness of the second instance” shall be corrected to “a witness of the second instance on November 30, 2012”; and the second part of the judgment of the first instance to “a witness of the second instance” shall be corrected to “a witness of the second instance”; and the second part of the judgment of the first instance to “a witness of the first instance” shall be corrected to “a witness of the first instance trial of the first instance”; and the second part to “a witness of the second part of the judgment of the first instance to read

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The J, the head of the Defendant’s headquarters, deliberated and resolved on the disciplinary action against the Plaintiff as the chairperson of the First Personnel Committee of this case, which violates Article 6-2(1) of the Personnel Management Regulations, and thus the above decision of the Personnel Management Committee is null and void. 2) Since the right to discipline the Plaintiff is against the chief executive officer, who is the Defendant’s representative, it is invalid.

B. According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 42, Eul evidence Nos. 42, Eul evidence Nos. 44-1, 2, 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 65-2, the audit committee, when a civil petition was filed with the Jeju Special Self-Governing Province Audit Committee due to a conflict between the plaintiff and the incorporated association I, on November 30, 2012, when the audit committee requested the defendant to submit a disciplinary action against the plaintiff to the defendant for a warning and issued a warning to the court, on which a warning measure was issued by the court, to deliberate on important matters concerning the personnel management of employees under the personnel management regulations of the defendant (Articles 5 and 6(1) and (2)), disciplinary action against the members of the personnel committee, etc.