1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal, including the part arising from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, is the same as the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the following judgment is added to

Therefore, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary Judgment] The plaintiff asserts to the effect that “(1) The plaintiff did not appoint the plaintiff as a regular worker without providing the plaintiff with the opportunity to vindicate properly, and therefore there is a serious procedural defect in the dismissal of this case.

However, according to the whole purport of Eul evidence No. 2 and the argument, it is clear that it does not necessarily provide for the relevant probationary employee to be given an opportunity to vindicate in advance when appointing probationary employees as regular employees under the internal regulations such as the intervenor's personnel regulations.

In addition, the regular appointment procedure is essentially different from the disciplinary procedure that imposes sanctions on the grounds of the worker's misconduct, and it is difficult to say that the opportunity for explanation is required due to the nature of the procedure.

Furthermore, the intervenor did not arbitrarily select the person to be appointed as regular workers, but decided whether to be appointed as regular workers after the evaluation of the head of the department to which the probationary employees belong and the deliberation of the personnel committee.

In full view of these circumstances, the Intervenor’s failure to give the Plaintiff an opportunity to vindicate before the dismissal of the instant case does not constitute procedural defect.

The plaintiff's assertion on this part is not acceptable.

② The Plaintiff asserts that the Intervenor’s “an assessment implementation for the appointment of full-time workers in 2013” prepared on November 14, 2013 (hereinafter “instant assessment implementation text”) infringes on the Plaintiff’s right to know and is unfair.

However, according to the evidence adopted by the first instance court cited earlier, Article 10(1) of the Settlement Members Agreement prepared by the plaintiff and the intervenor around August 19, 2013 is an intervenor.