1. The Defendant and the Intervenor’s Intervenor’s appeal are dismissed.

2. The portion resulting from the participation in the appeal costs.

1. The grounds cited in the judgment of the court of first instance, which the defendant and the intervenor asserted in the trial while appealed, are not significantly different from the contents alleged in the judgment of the court of first instance.

In full view of the evidence submitted by the first instance court and this court and the purport of testimony and oral argument by witnesses of this court, even if some grounds for disciplinary action against the intervenors are not acknowledged, there are reasonable grounds for the Plaintiff to refuse the renewal of the employment contract against the Intervenor B and C. Thus, the employment contract between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor is terminated on July 31, 2013, and the said Intervenor does not have any interest in remedy against dismissal as of July 29, 2013. The grounds for disciplinary action against the Intervenor D and E cannot be deemed as abuse of discretionary power that the two-month disciplinary action against the said Intervenor from office on July 29, 2013.

Therefore, the reasoning of this court concerning this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal of some contents as follows. Thus, this court shall accept it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. On the 10th page 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance, 20 workers, including the intervenors, are added to the following “(be accompanied by X/V, the leader in charge of the intervenors).”

On the 13th page of the first instance judgment, the following contents shall be added.

Meanwhile, certain workers, including the intervenors, belonging to the Plaintiff including the Intervenor, from April 30, 2013 to the same year.

7. 1. He/she was indicted on suspicion that he/she interfered with each Plaintiff’s work, and Daejeon District Court Seo-gu District Court en banc Decision 2015No. 7 October 7, 2015 (No. 112, Apr. 30, 2013);

5.13.13.

6.4.Woman;

6. 10.10. (10.) The decision that it is difficult to recognize that the obstruction of business by force constitutes a obstruction of business by force, and not guilty, and the rest of the obstruction of business;

5.6.Woman;

5.29.11

6.11.1.1;

6. 13.13.