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.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

A. The reasoning for this case is as follows, except for the addition of some contents, and thus, the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the ground for the judgment of the court of first instance. As such, this case is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation

B. The following shall be added to the 8th sentence following the date of the first instance judgment.

The plaintiff asserts that the disciplinary procedure in this case does not contain any procedural errors since the plaintiff has no duty to specifically notify the intervenor who is to be disciplined of the facts of disciplinary action in advance unless the plaintiff's rules of employment provide that the person to be disciplined should be notified of the facts of disciplinary action in advance.

However, Article 71(1) of the Rules of Employment of the Plaintiff provides that "the decision of disciplinary action shall be made by the personnel committee and an employee shall be given an opportunity to vindicate." Thus, the decision of procedural illegality of the disciplinary procedure of this case as to the above is purporting that the dismissal of this case violates the above provision in the disciplinary procedure where the Plaintiff did not provide an opportunity to vindicate to the intervenor at least regarding the third ground for disciplinary action, and it is difficult to view that there was any error in the above decision even considering the

According to this, the plaintiff's assertion is not accepted.

The following shall be added to 15 pages 13 of the judgment of the court of first instance.

Around January 8, 2014, the Plaintiff expressed his/her intention of resignation on an open job, and the representative director of the Plaintiff accepted it and agreed to terminate the labor contract relationship between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor. However, even before that time, the time when the termination became effective was postponed until August 2014, and only there was room for the Intervenor to be able to advance his/her resignation if the Intervenor wishes to resign even before that time. Therefore, considering the special nature of the case, the Plaintiff’s position is compared to the general case.