1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The total cost of the lawsuit after the filing of the appeal shall be the cost of the supplementary participation.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The relationship 1) The Plaintiff is a local public enterprise that employs 170 full-time workers and finds and carries out public projects and various urban development projects in accordance with the policy of Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, and Kimpo-si. 2) The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “Supplementary Intervenor”) entered the Kimpo-si Facilities Management Corporation on August 26, 2002 (which was incorporated into the Plaintiff on March 17, 201), and was employed as an instructor of the Plaintiff’s own experience from Bdo self-experience site (hereinafter referred to as “Do self-experience site”) under the Plaintiff’s control as an instructor of the map.

B. On June 28, 2012, the Plaintiff’s personnel committee against the Intervenor: “The Intervenor neglected to settle and examine the prices of goods; ② received money, such as KRW 80,000,000 in cash from the students in the Do self-experience site; and KRW 9,10,000,000,000 from the transaction entity; ③ improper payment of KRW 4,60,000,000,000,000,000 won was made; ④ production of souvenirs by diverting the budget without permission (hereinafter “reasons for suspension from office”).

(2) On the grounds delineated, the Plaintiff decided to dismiss the Intervenor on June 29, 2012 by applying Article 6 (Duty to Maintain Dignity), Article 8 (Duty to Maintain Dignity), Article 9-2 (Trush Accounting Management), Article 14 (Restrictions on Receipt of Money and Valuables), and Article 25 (Disposition of Prohibited Money and Valuables) of the Regulations on Employment. On the other hand, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor of his dismissal in accordance with the above resolution of the personnel committee, and the Intervenor appealed and filed a petition for a retrial with the personnel committee. On August 14, 2012, the personnel committee decided to reduce the “retirement” against the Intervenor as “three months in suspension of duty” and the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor thereof on August 16, 2012 (hereinafter “previous Suspension Disposition”).

(2) On October 29, 2012, the Intervenor asserted that the previous suspension order is unfair, and filed an application for remedy with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission for unfair suspension from office.