1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal, including the part arising from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment as to the plaintiff's argument at the court of first instance as set forth in paragraph (2) below, and thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence

2. Additional determination

A. In light of the fact that B, working in the same department as the Plaintiff’s assertion, stated that it did not conduct a horizontal evaluation against the Plaintiff at the time of evaluation of work performance in the second half of 2010, the horizontal evaluation of the Plaintiff was not conducted in the second half of 2010, and the evidence Nos. 5 and 6 submitted by the Intervenor on the ground that the horizontal evaluation was conducted by the Intervenor was conducted later.

B. Determination 1) According to each of the statements in Gap evidence No. 14 (Recording) as shown in the plaintiff's argument that Eul did not conduct a horizontal evaluation of the plaintiff at the time of the evaluation of work performance in the second half of 2010. However, this is a arbitrary recording of the conversations without the plaintiff's consent, and the witness B testified that "the plaintiff did not conduct a horizontal evaluation" in the court room, and there is no finally limited recording of the statement that "the plaintiff did not conduct a horizontal evaluation." The witness B testified that "the plaintiff did not have an evaluation of the plaintiff in the second half of 2010." It is different from the recording of the above record; Gap evidence No. 14 and evidence No. 34-1; according to each of the statements in Gap evidence No. 14 and evidence No. 34-1, in light of the fact that Eul and Eul refused the plaintiff's request that "the plaintiff did not conduct a horizontal evaluation of the plaintiff" in each of the telephone conversations of the plaintiff at their own discretion, it is difficult that the plaintiff's submission of the above record No. 201.