1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is that "the June 18, 2006" in Part 2, Part 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as "the June 18, 2008", and "the December 31, 2005" in Part 17 of the judgment of the court of first instance is added as "the occurrence of "the occurrence" in Part 6, 5, and "the expression of intention" in Part 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance is "the occurrence of the occurrence", and "the expression of intention" in Part 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance is unjust.

Inasmuch as the instant lectures, etc. are deemed to constitute “a declaration of intent made by coercion under Article 110 of the Civil Act,” and the instant lectures, etc., which are the contents of which considerably lose fairness, are deemed to constitute unfair legal acts under Article 104 of the Civil Act, as such, are deemed to constitute “a declaration of intent made by duress under Article 110 of the Civil Act.”

In addition, it is difficult to delete the 19th parallel 19th parallel 7th parallel 7th parallel 19th parallel 8th parallel 8th parallel 1th parallel.

The plaintiff asserts that the Committee voluntarily applied for the budget of 2010 to reduce the budget in 2009, but it is difficult to recognize the submitted evidence alone, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition, “B” was allocated the budget of KRW 3.94 billion on December 13, 2015 to “B” 5.13.13.5.13.20 million on December 13, 2010 and applied for the diversion of the budget for personnel expenses of the Ministry of the Interior and Safety on December 13, 2010, and obtained approval of KRW 9.364,000 on December 20, 2010, the fact that “B” was found to have been “B” by the act, coercion, etc. of “Class 8” due to the act, etc., but, inasmuch as it was the content that “B” was considerably lost by, or remarkably lost by, the act, etc., the act, etc. of 9 pages 8, it retains each height and 10 pages 4.”

Even if "the following" and the above proviso are not applicable, the plaintiff continued to work in the Japanese colonial committee for more than two years from July 1, 2007, in which the Fixed-term Act was enforced, so the period is fixed in accordance with Article 4 (2) of the Fixed-term Act.