1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are all included in the part resulting from participation.

1. The Plaintiff’s ground of appeal citing the judgment of the first instance is not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance court, and even if considering the evidence submitted in this case as a whole, it is recognized that the facts of the first instance court and the determination thereof are legitimate.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of the court is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition of part of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance as set forth in the following Paragraph 2. Thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of

2. He/she shall add " April 1, 2017" to " April 11, 2017," set forth in the table of the third top top top part of the content that he/she sets up or supplements to "."

Part 4 "I" in Part 13 shall be added to "N".

The following contents shall be added to the "not difficult points" in two parallels from the 6th place below:

[Judgment of the court below] Even if the plaintiff's duty is assigned to a new job and the plaintiff's duty is partially changed, this belongs to the authority of the employer who is the personnel management authority, and as a matter of principle, considerable discretion should be acknowledged within the scope necessary for the job, and it cannot be deemed null and void unless there are special circumstances, such as violating the Labor Standards Act or constituting abuse of rights (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du20447, Feb. 28, 2013). In full view of the plaintiff's duty of work, ordinary work, duty newly assigned to the plaintiff, and disadvantage suffered by the plaintiff, it is difficult to deem that the intervenor's performance of the above duty is unfair

[] The following is added subsequent to the 7th page 6 of the “Is difficult to see”:

Article 7-8(1) of the Civil Act provides that “The Plaintiff’s attitude of working is considered to be very rough and unfaithed, and the Intervenor’s demand for correction is no longer corrected, thereby leading to a labor contract with the Intervenor.”