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. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following additional determination as to the matters alleged by the plaintiff at the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the

(Other matters alleged by the Plaintiff in the trial are not significantly different from the contents alleged by the Plaintiff in the first instance trial, and the judgment of the first instance court that rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion even if the Plaintiff’s assertion was reviewed together with the evidence submitted in the first instance trial and the first instance trial, is justifiable).

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that there is a proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff’s work branch of the instant case and the Plaintiff’s work, inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s assertion had continuously been subject to or aggravated stress due to (i) frequent relocation of workplace and department moving, and (ii) stress due to the new work, (iii) unreasonable and discriminatory treatment of commercial and club employees, and (iv) stress due to pressure on unfair and biased personnel assessment and dismissal.

According to the Intervenor’s personnel regulations, where a worker receives medical care due to an occupational disease, he/she can take a leave of absence until the disease is fully improved. Since the injury or disease in this case falls under an occupational accident, the instant dismissal disposition taken without accepting the Plaintiff’s application for extension of leave

B. Although the court of the lawsuit of the relevant legal doctrine No. 1 is not bound by the fact-finding of another administrative trial, the facts recognized in the relevant administrative trial already established are significant evidence in the relevant administrative litigation. Thus, barring special circumstances where it is deemed difficult to adopt a factual judgment of the relevant administrative trial in light of other evidence submitted in the relevant administrative litigation.