1. All appeals of this case are dismissed.

2. Of the costs of appeal, the part resulting from the intervention is the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, is as follows, with the exception that the court has partially dismissed the judgment of the court of first instance and added the judgment on the argument of the defendant and the intervenor joining the court of first instance.

Therefore, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Attachment] 10 to 13 acts under 5 pages of the judgment of the court of first instance, "whether or not the grounds for 14 acts (a) 1 are recognized under the 5 pages of the judgment of the court of first instance, and whether or not the grounds for 14 acts (a) are subject to the discipline of the grounds for 14 acts (a)

2. The further determination of this Court

A. Although the defendant and the intervenor alleged that the defendant and the intervenor did not commit such misconduct as to the grounds for 2, 3, and 5 which the National Labor Relations Commission acknowledged as legitimate grounds for disciplinary action, this constitutes an unlawful addition of the grounds for disposition, and thus, it cannot be allowed.

Although part of the Intervenor's misconduct is recognized, it does not constitute grounds for removal stipulated in Article 47 of the Plaintiff's Personnel Management Regulations, since the Intervenor did not have any significant damage to the A Saemaul Fund, a corporation prior to the merger (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff") by intention or gross negligence.

In addition, the intervenor cannot be deemed to have shown an attitude that did not reflect because he/she had been present at the board of directors to take his/her responsibility, and all recognized grounds for disciplinary action are related to loans that the intervenor had been prior to receiving salary reduction in 2009.

Furthermore, the Intervenor does not have obtained personal benefits through loans related to the grounds for 2, 3, 5, and 6 (hereinafter “instant loans”).

Furthermore, the plaintiff did not take a warning disposition for C, the chief executive officer, against the balance with the intervenor, and did not take a disciplinary measure for other related persons.

Therefore, the removal of this case is within the scope of disciplinary discretion.