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 citing the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the court citing the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of the judgment or adding the judgment of the plaintiff's argument at the trial of the court of first instance citing it pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text

(Other, the content alleged by the Plaintiff in this court is not significantly different from the content alleged by the Plaintiff in the first instance court, and even if all of the evidence submitted in the first instance and the trial were examined, the judgment of the first instance court that rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion is justifiable). [The part that was modified] The portion that was “ January 3, 2015” as “ January 3, 2014.”

On the 21st page of the judgment of the first instance, the "railroad construction" at the last place of the judgment is regarded as "ANo.".

The judgment of the first instance court 23 pages 12 "16:00" is deemed to be "16:40".

Each of the 24 pages 24 and 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be the witness of the court of first instance, respectively.

The grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance 29 to 15 shall be the third-party.

C. 1) The part of Paragraph 1 of this Article stating that the Defendant’s “the Defendant asserts to either effect” is as follows.

Of the grounds for disciplinary actions against the intervenors 2, the fact that the intervenors indicated as “” refuse to perform their duties collectively for the purpose of opposing the circular transfer and hold a general meeting of the union members during working hours constitutes an industrial action. The circular transfer is a matter belonging to the personnel management authority of the high level and thus cannot be subject to the industrial action. Therefore, the legitimacy of the purpose of the industrial action is not recognized, and procedurally unlawful without undergoing the mediation procedure of the Labor Relations Commission. Moreover, even though the intervenors indicated as “” designated as the compulsory operator of the industrial action, even though the intervenors designated as the compulsory operator of the industrial action, they did not perform their duties at the time of the industrial action.