1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit is due to the participation.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the submission or addition of part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this is acceptable as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The 11th sentence of the first instance court’s 15th sentence’s “Mymar fact,” followed “F, before F arrives at the above house, the Plaintiff and the victim first drinked,” respectively.

'Reasons for the judgment of the first instance court';

B. 3 Determination on disciplinary action and “Article 2”

C. The part of the 's theory' has been dried as follows:

(3) When a disciplinary measure is taken against a person subject to disciplinary action due to the grounds for disciplinary action, the decision on disciplinary action is left to the discretion of the person having authority over disciplinary action.

However, the disciplinary action is illegal only when it is recognized that the person having authority to take an action has abused the discretionary power, because the disciplinary action has considerably lost validity under the social norms.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the dismissal disposition is justified in cases where an employee is responsible to the extent that it is not possible to continue the employee relationship under the generally accepted social norms, and whether it is impossible to continue the employee relationship with the employee should be determined by comprehensively examining various circumstances, including the purpose and nature of the employee’s business, the circumstances of the workplace, the status of the employee and the job in charge, the motive and background of the act of misconduct, the influence of the employee’s behavior on the corporate order such as the risk of disturbing the order of deceptive scheme, and the past attitude of the employee’s work.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du10455, May 28, 2002). (b) Specificly determined evidence Nos. 4, 7, 9, 10, 15, 17, 18, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1, 6, 13, and 28 are as follows.