1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts which are used or added. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 42

(1) In addition, the court of first instance that rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion by considering the evidence submitted by the court, including the witness C’s testimony in addition to the evidence submitted by the court of first instance, the grounds alleged by the Plaintiff in the appeal do not differ significantly from the contents of the Plaintiff’s assertion in the court of first instance, and the court of first instance that rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion by considering the evidence submitted by the court of first instance, including the witness C’s testimony, is justifiable. The court of first instance dismissed the “Rules 7.8(15) and (20) of the Rules of Employment” in the

The following shall be added to the 30th sentence of the first instance judgment.

【h) In light of the following: (a) the Intervenor, as a personnel officer of the Plaintiff, has the authority to access electronic data related to trade secrets, such as personnel data and payment details of executives and employees, and at the same time is in a position to protect such data; (b) the Intervenor’s size of computerized data stored or removed in the USB of this case includes the total personal information, payment information, etc.; and (c) the Plaintiff’s business characteristics include professional human resources and research personnel developing new technology; (d) if personal information of executives and employees is leaked, there was a high risk of significant damage to the Plaintiff; and (e) the Intervenor’s act constitutes a serious error that damages the trust relationship with the Plaintiff. In light of the above, it is clear that the Intervenor’s act of this case constitutes a serious mistake that damages the Plaintiff’s trust relationship.

However, according to the above facts, the grounds for dismissal are separately prescribed in the rules of employment of the plaintiff 7.8.