1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the cases where "the appropriateness of a disciplinary decision is appropriate" in Part 6, Part 7, and Part 8, Part 8, and Part 12, of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Attachment] (2) The dismissal disposition shall be justified only when there are grounds for the worker's responsibility to the extent that it is impossible to continue the employee's employment relationship with the worker concerned under social norms. Whether it is impossible to continue the employee's employment relationship with the worker concerned shall be determined by comprehensively examining various circumstances, including the purpose and nature of the employer concerned, conditions of the workplace concerned, status and duties of the worker concerned, motive and circumstance of the misconduct, influence on the company's business order such as the risk of disturbing the corporate deceptive order, past work attitude, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du10455, May 28, 2002). (B) The health team, the worker reinstated, immediately after the reinstatement, was absent without permission, and the plaintiff's return order, and the plaintiff's dismissal order was not returned to the plaintiff's return order, and the plaintiff's 1-2 testimony or 2-3 evidence of disciplinary action cannot be seen to constitute the plaintiff's unlawful employment relation with Gap and the plaintiff's 1-2-2).