1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. Of the appeal costs, the part resulting from the intervention is the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment, is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to that which, under the 14th sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance, deleted a disciplinary action and a subsequent disciplinary action, and the second to the lower to the “the Equal Employment Opportunity Act” (hereinafter “the Equal Employment Opportunity Act”), and thus, cites it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Article 66 subparag. 10 of the Rules of Employment (the prohibition of sexual harassment in the workplace provided for in the Equal Employment Opportunity Act) is not stated in the personnel record card of a witness as the ground for disciplinary action, unless it is stated in the notice of the result of disciplinary action that the defendant and the intervenor provided the intervenor with the intervenor's “sexual harassment and assault,” the plaintiff’s special audit and the disciplinary proceedings were commenced in 2008, not explicitly excluded from the deliberation of the personnel committee. Rather, in the process of deliberation of the personnel committee, sexual harassment was taken including the victim’s intent to withdraw sexual harassment, and the victim’s “sexual harassment and assault” was stated in the personnel record card of the witness. The defendant and the intervenor did not state that “the victim is subject to the prohibition of sexual harassment in the workplace provided for in the Rules of Employment for the Equal Employment Opportunity Act (the same time as the intervenor did not work in the workplace and the worker employed by the plaintiff did not work in the workplace and did not constitute sexual harassment in the workplace provided for in the Equal Employment Opportunity Act. Thus, if the intervenor was investigated for 2008 years after being investigated.