1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. Of the instant lawsuit, the termination of the agreement on the internship support added by the Plaintiff at the trial.

1. The court's explanation of this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment as stated in paragraph (2). Thus, the court's explanation of this case is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(A) On July 20, 2016, the Plaintiff added a claim for the cancellation of the disposition against the Plaintiff on July 20, 2016, which was the first instance court’s finding of facts and determination, based on the allegations and evidence added in the trial. 2. The Plaintiff added a claim for the cancellation of the disposition against the Plaintiff on July 20, 2016, which was the Defendant’s termination and suspension of support, and the prohibition of hiring an internship for three years (from June 24, 2016 to June 23, 2

On the other hand, the plaintiff of the administrative litigation may alter the purport or cause of the claim pursuant to Article 262 of the Civil Procedure Act applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act to the extent that it does not change the basis of the claim (see Supreme Court Decision 9Du9407, Nov. 26, 199). The effect of complying with the legal period of a new claim after the amendment pursuant to Article 265 of the Civil Procedure Act becomes effective, in principle, at the time of the amendment of the claim, i

At the time of filing the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff filed a claim seeking the revocation of the instant disposition, 90 days after the date on which the Plaintiff became aware of the termination and suspension of support agreements and the revocation of the instant disposition prohibiting the employment of internships for three years, while submitting an application for modifying the purport of the claim on October 29, 2016, and submitted a document to add the said claim on May 17, 2017 after the withdrawal of the said claim. As such, the Plaintiff filed a claim with this court for the revocation of the said disposition, 90 days after the date on which the Plaintiff became aware of the termination and suspension of support agreements and the prohibition of employment of internships for three years. As such, the part of the instant claim in the instant lawsuit is unlawful because the period of filing the

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of first instance is just and without merit, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the lawsuit of this case is pending.