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

2. The costs of appeal shall be those resulting from the participation in the appeal;

1. The reasons why the court has cited the judgment of the first instance, and Paragraph (1) of the judgment of the first instance, concerning this case; and

C. 1) (b) Following the first instance judgment, the intervenor filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the Seoul Administrative Court’s decision on unfair personnel and unfair salary reduction relief (2018Guhap75436), but the above court dismissed the intervenor’s claim, and the appellate court is continuing to be the Seoul High Court 2019Nu46192 as of the date of closing argument in the trial. The above case is rendered on the same day as this case. “The foregoing is added and the judgment is rendered on the same day as the judgment in the first instance except for additional determination as to the assertion that the defendant and the intervenor emphasizes again in the trial as described in the second instance judgment. As such, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The summary of each argument by the Defendant and the Intervenor 1) double disciplinary action (Defendant and the Intervenor) against the Intervenor on December 20, 2017 (hereinafter “the Intervenor failed to comply with the Plaintiff’s personnel order against the Intervenor on December 6, 2017”) refers to one-month disciplinary action against the Intervenor on December 20, 2017; hereinafter the same shall apply. While the Plaintiff’s second personnel order was based on the refusal of the Plaintiff’s first personnel order, the Plaintiff’s basic factual basis is identical in that the Intervenor rejected the first personnel order. As such, the Plaintiff’s suspension from office against the Intervenor on October 20, 2017, which was the first intervenor’s refusal of the first personnel order, was based on the ground that the Plaintiff’s refusal of the first personnel order against the Intervenor on September 29, 2017, constitutes a reduction of salary as a ground for disciplinary action against the Intervenor on which the Plaintiff did not comply with the Plaintiff’s personnel order against the Intervenor on December 29, 2017.