1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. Of the appeal costs, the part resulting from the intervention is the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

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

Additional or modified part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be changed to "Evidence 6, Evidence 7, and Evidence 8 of No. 8" of No. 14 and 15 of the judgment of the court of first instance.

The seventh part of the judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows.

3) From December 29, 2012, there had been snow in Seoul since December 16, 2012, and on the 30th of the same month, 6 to 8 meters per hour per day. The lowest temperature of 11 degrees per hour and the highest temperature of 0 degrees per hour.

On the 31st day of the same month, a report was made on the 31st day of the same month, stating, “The frequent snow and brutly road ice ice ice ice ice-shielded, and the traffic accident on the ice ice 30,31st day of the same month was not cut.”

The following parts are added to the 7th sentence of the judgment of the first instance. (The intervenor asserts that part of the bus drivers cited below are workers belonging to G Co., Ltd. rather than workers belonging to the intervenor, but according to Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 13, Gap evidence 16, Gap evidence 26, Eul evidence 13, and Eul evidence 13, G Co., Ltd. is a previous company name of the intervenor, and the intervenor's above assertion is without merit) of the 8th sentence of the judgment of the first instance. The plaintiff is composed of four members including the head of the in-house division, three members of the in-house division, and one person of the company, etc., but according to Eul evidence 20, the above contents are applied to the disciplinary action against the plaintiff as of May 1, 2013.