1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning six months of disciplinary leave among disciplinary actions listed in the separate sheet dated March 22, 2017 and November 23, 2017

1. The grounds for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts are as follows: “The Defendant held a disciplinary personnel committee against the Plaintiff on March 15, 2017. On March 22, 2017, the Plaintiff, as shown in the separate sheet, ① six months of temporary retirement (from March 23, 2017 to September 22, 2017), ② changes in business, ③ a disciplinary action for prohibition of personal employees outside of business (hereinafter referred to as “the instant disciplinary action,” collectively referred to as “three dispositions”), and thus, it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, the same shall be cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.”

2. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the request for confirmation of invalidity of the instant standby order disposition are as stated in the reasons from 4th to 5th 16th 16th 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is accepted in accordance with the text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

3. Requests to nullify the invalidity of the six-month period of the disciplinary measure in this case

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the disciplinary action in this case was not specified because the grounds for the disciplinary action were too comprehensive and ambiguous, and ② the Plaintiff did not commit any misconduct which constitutes the grounds for the disciplinary action, and ③ the disciplinary action is null and void since it abused the discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary action, as it considerably loses validity under social

B. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the first instance court’s judgment No. 62 through No. 16 is identical to that of the second instance court’s judgment; and (b) the same is acceptable pursuant to the main sentence of

C. The following facts are acknowledged in light of the existence or absence of grounds for disciplinary action related to the reduction and operation of the number of occasions of allocation of so-called CT Inspection SOL (SLT), Eul evidence 14, Eul evidence 33, Eul evidence 34, Eul evidence 35, Eul evidence 45, Eul evidence 63, Eul evidence 64, Eul evidence 65, Eul evidence 666, and the overall purport of the arguments and arguments.