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.

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

(1) In addition, the part of the first instance judgment rejecting the Plaintiff’s assertion, even if all evidence submitted by the first instance court and this court are examined, the first instance judgment rejecting the Plaintiff’s assertion is justifiable. The part of the first instance judgment, which was written by the Plaintiff, deleted the part of the first instance judgment, “H, who observed this time, told D to use the Intervenor’s ractor device, and reported D to the Plaintiff.”

No. 10 of the first instance judgment, "No. 21" of the second instance judgment shall be used as "No. 21, 25, 26", and the third instance of the second instance judgment shall be "the testimony of a witness D" as "the testimony of a witness D of the first instance court and I of the first instance trial."

Part 11 of the judgment of the court of first instance, "other than three cases" in Part 14 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be written in addition to three cases (as a result of partial testimony of evidence No. 2 of the court of first instance and witness D of the court of first instance, one of them is recorded by mistake in the case of 'customercomlain').

Article 2-2 of the Grounds for Judgment of the first instance

C. 2) 2) b) c) c) c) c) c) c) c) f) c) f) c) f) f) f (v) f) f) f (in the first instance judgment, the

x) In the skin management office of the council members of this case, the nursing team leader f has performed a copy to the assistant nurse E and performed a procedure between employees. The testimony portion of the witness D of the first instance court that the intervenor was aware of at the time of the above procedure is stated that there is no other objective evidence and the intervenor was on leave at the time of the above procedure. Thus, there is no evidence sufficient to acknowledge that the intervenor participated in the above procedure among the employees.

(v) the applicant;