1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The 11st "10" portion of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance shall be "8 to 10".

The reasoning of the judgment of the first instance appears to be “justifiable business instruction” of 4 pages 18 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the “part” constitutes “justifiable business instruction”, and shall add the following:

The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the notice cannot be deemed as a claim against the head of C head’s duty instruction, on the ground that it is not an objection to the direction of C head of C head of C head of C head of C to “undertake and install safety warnings, etc.,” but an objection to “not passive speech of business.”

However, the C head of the agency is actively involved in the plaintiff.

D. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff initially instructed the Plaintiff to install a safety warning, etc., and the Plaintiff’s subsequent measures were taken in the process of re-setting the Plaintiff, the said remarks also can be deemed to be an occupational order to the effect that the head of the C head “to install necessary equipment in response to appropriate and prompt response to the demand for equipment” to the Plaintiff.

Furthermore, in light of the status and relationship of the Plaintiff, who is the head of the C head of the Information System and the head of the C head of the C head of the C head, and the c head of the C head before and after the c head of the C head made the above remarks, it cannot be deemed that the above remarks have passed

Therefore, even if the plaintiff's assertion is based on the plaintiff's argument, the above statement constitutes legitimate business instruction, and it is reasonable to view that the notice is a claim against legitimate business instruction.

. The reasoning of the first instance judgment and the 6th 8 lines "" are "."