1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit is resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court on this part is as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, on the ground that the court’s explanation on this part is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following grounds: “Plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 8” of the judgment of the court of first instance as “No. 1, 2, and 9” and “No. 1, 2, and 9” of the judgment of the court of first instance as “No. 1, 2, and 17” of the judgment of the court of first instance as “No. 2, 2017.”

2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was prepared and submitted on September 20, 2017 and accepted by the Intervenor on the same day. However, this is based on the rules of employment or cabin training for three persons who were at the time of the Plaintiff’s flight convenience service on July 19, 2017 (hereinafter “business assistant”).

On August 31, 2017, the part of the Intervenor’s personnel management subcommittee was held without the Plaintiff’s attendance, and the part of the Intervenor’s heavy disciplinary action was decided for two months of suspension from office against the Plaintiff. This is not a normal personnel management measure, but also a disciplinary measure under the rules of employment. ③ Officers of the Intervenor, including G regular business, headquarters headquarters, etc., have been employed several times on September 2017, ④ measures of unilateral and unfounded flight service exclusion and non-assignment of duties were taken from the Intervenor from September 8, 2017. ⑤ On September 19, 2017, the criteria for the Plaintiff’s personal personnel management subcommittee or the guidance on the grounds of disciplinary action were taken against the Plaintiff, and the part of the Intervenor’s resignation was not submitted to the pertinent headquarters in addition to the act of violation of the rules of employment or the discipline that was pointed out at the time of e-mail, and the part of the Intervenor’s additional disciplinary action that occurred after the Plaintiff’s resignation was not held.