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 of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the following dismissal or addition. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

According to the second sentence of the first instance court, the defendant's instruction to replace the head of the center is in violation of Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act, and the defendant's instruction to replace the head of the center is in violation of the principle of rule of law, and thus, the defendant's order to replace the head of the center is in violation of Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act.

However, the Defendant’s direction to replace the head of the center is not an act of dismissal against the employee, but an act of compelling a violation of Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff continued to maintain the subsidy in a situation where it is difficult for the Plaintiff to obtain the trust that the subsidy would be operated transparently due to the corruption of the head of the center as follows.

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

On the 11th of the judgment of the court of first instance, the plaintiff asserts that the "retirement Forest Fund" under the 7th judgment of the court of first instance was "reserve Fund" and added the following contents to the 13th sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance, and that the above criminal act B under the 10th sentence of the above criminal judgment occurred before 10 years, the disposition of this case is too harsh.

However, even if the act of embezzlement and defraudation by B under the above criminal judgment was around 2007 through 2008, the above criminal judgment was finalized only on May 10, 2012, and the defendant has received confirmation and confirmation by refering to the reported matters decided by the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission as of October 13, 2014.