1. The plaintiff succeeding intervenor's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the intervenor succeeding to the plaintiff.

purport.

The court's explanation of this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this case in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(1) The Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s assertion that the disposition of this case by the Defendant was unlawful on the ground that the Plaintiff’s ground for disposition of this case was non-existent is not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance court, and all evidence submitted by the first instance court are examined. Thus, the first instance court’s rejection of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the disposition of this case was unlawful on the ground that the ground that the ground for disposition of this case was non-existent is justifiable is justifiable. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Plaintiff’s Intervenor in the first instance judgment is dismissed on the ground that the part against the Plaintiff’s succeeding Intervenor in the first instance judgment is justifiable. Accordingly,