1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit is resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the decision are as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, in addition to the dismissal of the corresponding part of the decision of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this part of the reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation

Following the second and second grounds for "the following reasons" (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the grounds for a disposition on the grounds of violation of the duty to maintain fairness in the election (hereinafter referred to as "the following grounds for a disposition on the grounds of violation of the duty to maintain fairness in the election) are referred to as "the grounds for a disposition on the grounds of violation of the duty to maintain fairness in the election ("the grounds for a disposition on the grounds of violation of the duty to maintain fairness in the election)" and "the grounds for a disposition on the grounds of violation of the duty to maintain fairness in the election" are referred to as "the grounds for a disposition on the grounds of violation of the duty to maintain fairness in the case," respectively.

The grounds for the following disposition do not exceed 6 months related to the reduction of salary 6 months, which add the following to the third place under the third place of conduct, are referred to as "the failure to manage the personnel of this case"

A person shall be appointed.

2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful

A. The instant disciplinary action, based on the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion, is legitimate for the following reasons, and the instant decision on review should be revoked on a different premise.

1) Whether there is a defect in disciplinary proceedings or not) The defendant should decide on disciplinary action against the intervenor at the deliberation and re-committee as prescribed by the Regulations on Inspection and Sanctions of Credit Unions (hereinafter “New Collaboration Regulations”) and the Enforcement Rule of the Regulations on Inspection and Sanctions of Credit Unions (hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the Regulations on the Re-Resolution Regulations”). The re-regulation regulations apply to cases where a unit compromise is inspected or punished by the National Federation, so the plaintiff may punish the intervenor without holding the deliberation and re-committee.

B. The defendant had the disciplinary action against the intervenor decided by the personnel committee for the plaintiff, which is the plaintiff.