1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part on Defendant B’s president shall be revoked, and the Plaintiff’s preliminary decision corresponding to the revoked part shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except where the part of the judgment on the assertion of abuse of discretionary power from 18th to 21th 3th son of the judgment of the first instance is used as follows, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance (excluding the part concerning the conclusion of April 2). Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

[2] If a disciplinary action violates the principle of proportionality or the principle of equality by choosing an excessive disciplinary action, which is contrary to the purpose of granting the authority to take disciplinary action, or is contrary to the purpose of imposing the authority to take disciplinary action, or by choosing an excessive disciplinary action which is contrary to the degree of flight that is considered a cause for disciplinary action, the disciplinary action is unlawful as it goes beyond the limit of the authority to take disciplinary action. Whether a disciplinary action violates the principle of proportionality is unlawful. Whether a disciplinary action violates the principle of proportionality is unlawful as it goes beyond the limit of the authority to take disciplinary action. Whether a disciplinary action violates the principle of proportionality is unlawful is determined based on a comprehensive determination of all the circumstances, such as the substance, degree, motive, and motive of the act recognized as a cause for disciplinary action, the impact of the administrative organization and the people on the administrative organization in question, the substance of the offender’s position and duty, the details of the disciplinary action, the degree of disadvantage caused by the ordinary behavior and duty, and the degree of disadvantage caused by the disciplinary action (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Du174.