1. The Intervenor’s appeal is dismissed.

2. The appeal cost includes the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: The "D" of the fourth 11st th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th

D. 1) Whether the instant disciplinary cause constitutes grounds stipulated in Article 51 subparag. 12 of the Rules of Employment or not, or whether the Plaintiff was convicted of a fine of KRW 4 million by the Seoul Northern District Court on September 24, 2015, the facts that the Intervenor dismissed the instant case pursuant to Article 51 subparag. 12 of the Rules of Employment of the Intervenor do not conflict between the parties. Article 51 of the Rules of Employment of the Intervenor provides that “The Intervenor may dismiss the instant case in any of the following cases.” Article 12 of the Rules of Employment provides that “A person who committed a crime of breach of trust, bribery, embezzlement, etc. in relation to his duties during the tenure of office and who was sentenced to a fine of KRW 3 million or more” as one of the grounds for dismissal. Therefore, it is problematic whether the Plaintiff constitutes a person who committed a crime of bribery, bribery, embezzlement, etc. in connection with the Intervenor’s duties, which is deemed to seriously interfere with the Intervenor’s work under Article 51 subparag. 12 of the Rules of Employment or an employee.