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 court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, in addition to adding the judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion under paragraph (2) below, and therefore, it is identical to the ground of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, it is also accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

In addition, the grounds alleged by the plaintiff in this court while filing an appeal are not significantly different from those alleged in the first instance court, and even if the evidence submitted additionally in this court and the testimony of witness F of this court are examined together, the grounds for the disciplinary action against the plaintiff and the facts finding and determining of the first instance court on disciplinary action are

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserts that “the Intervenor intentionally modified the rules of employment by adding new grounds for disciplinary action to severely punish the Plaintiff, and did not report the revised rules of employment to the Ministry of Employment and Labor, so the instant secondary dismissal based on the revised rules of employment was unlawful by abusing discretion.”

However, the revised rules of employment cannot be deemed null and void solely on the ground that the Ministry of Employment and Labor did not report the revision of the rules of employment. The rules of employment of the intervenor was amended on January 10, 2016 with the consent of the majority of the intervenor workers (Evidence B and 33), and the rules of employment of the intervenor were amended in addition to the provisions on disciplinary action, such as dismissal, the provisions on extended working hours, annual paid leave, and sick leave irrelevant to the second dismissal of the plaintiff.

(A) No. 34, B, and 22). There is no evidence that the revised rules of employment are not legitimate by intentionally amending the rules of employment disadvantageous to the plaintiff.

Therefore, we cannot accept the plaintiff's above argument.

B. The Plaintiff’s curriculum was refunded in relation to the grounds for disciplinary action No. 2, and curriculum was conducted.