1. All appeals filed by the Defendant and the Intervenor are dismissed.

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

The court's explanation of this case is identical to the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance other than the dismissal as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, the court's explanation of this case is acceptable as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

(A) In addition, the grounds alleged by the Defendant and the Intervenor in the appeal do not differ significantly from the allegations in the first instance court, and even if all evidence submitted by the first instance court and this court are examined, the first instance court’s revocation of the Defendant’s decision on review, deeming that the Defendant’s decision on review was unlawful, is justifiable). On the fourth instance of the first instance judgment, the part to be used by the Defendant, “(2016da656)” in the first instance judgment, shall be construed as “(2016da656).”

2-2 of the grounds of the judgment of the first instance

C. (1) 3) The following is added to the 6th sentence below (the 10th sentence upper part below) following the first instance judgment:

(D) On December 1, 2013, submitted by the Intervenor Company, the written consent of the Rules of Employment (No. B. 14) (the J signed the evidence No. 14) was expressed to the effect that, on April 11, 2018, the Intervenor Company had been working for the Intervenor Company since 2008 in telephone conversations with the Plaintiff, but it did not know of the rules of employment at all, and that there was a signature signed as to whether it had been without being aware of the content of the plan between

"Two-party grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance"

(c) add “A No. 10” to “the ground for recognition” under the lower part of paragraph 1.

On May 2015, Article 8.1.3 of the Rules of Employment, which was formulated around November 2013 as alleged by the Intervenor, “In light of these testimonys at this Court,” the testimony at the court of first instance and the statement that “J was entirely unaware of the rules of employment,” and the statement that “I have signed that I had no knowledge of the rules of employment before 1 to 2 years from April 2018,” and “I have signed that I have no knowledge of the contents of the rules of employment.” On May 3, 2015, the type of driving under Article 8.1.3 of the Rules of Employment, which was formulated around 2013 as argued by the Intervenor, is the type of quasi-state: 50% of the monthly wage.