1. The defendant intervenor's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant intervenor.

3. Judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: the Defendant Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s 7th of the second instance judgment was cited as “Defendant Intervenor”; and the Defendant Intervenor’s additional argument in the trial is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the addition of the judgment as stated in paragraph (2) below, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Additional determination

A. The Intervenor’s assertion ought to pay large-amount wages to the Intervenor in a lawsuit claiming wages against the Intervenor, and the Intervenor’s financial standing is anticipated to significantly worsen in the long term. Since the Intervenor’s compensation decision was made in 2015, it is necessary to manage the Intervenor’s labor contract renewal without refusing to renew the labor contract with the Plaintiff.

In addition, due to the poor work performance and work attitude of the plaintiff, there is a reasonable reason to select the plaintiff as a person to refuse to renew the labor contract.

B. In light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to recognize the Intervenor’s assertion even according to the descriptions of evidence Nos. 7 through 17, which the Intervenor submitted additionally at the trial.

1. According to the statements in the evidence Nos. 9 and 10 of B, the intervenor did not pay part of the wages after the amendment of the regulations on the remuneration of the teachers and staff to the disadvantage of the teachers and staff without due process, and it can be acknowledged that teachers have requested the payment of the wages and that the intervenor has been sentenced to the judgment against

However, it is only recognized that the intervenor's obligation to pay wages is recognized by a judgment by illegally avoiding wages that the intervenor bears the obligation to pay, and it cannot be said that the intervenor's business difficulties have occurred.

② According to the statements in the evidence Nos. 7 and 11, when the intervenor is anticipated for the long-term period by the year 2023, the intervenor's finance may be aggravated.