1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

The court's explanation of this case by the court of the first instance as to this case is based on the following Paragraph 2, and it is consistent with the reasoning of the first instance judgment in light of Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since it is identical to the reasoning of the first instance judgment in addition to additional determination of the plaintiff's assertion made in this court as

(2) The judgment of the first instance court, which rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion, is justifiable even if all evidence submitted by the first instance court and this court were examined. The judgment of the first instance court, which rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion, was rejected. The judgment of the first instance court, which dismissed the Plaintiff’s assertion, was dismissed “(hereinafter “the judgment of the first instance court”) in the fourth part of the judgment of the first instance.”

No. 4 of the first instance judgment, "No. 31, 32, and 32" shall be added to "No. 31, 32, and 4."

Each "this case trade union" in the 7th judgment of the court of first instance shall be incorporated into "the branch of the trade union of this case".

In the first instance judgment, the part 6 and 7 of the part 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance, “Any appeal by the present B is pending in the final appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2017Da223378),” “B filed a final appeal, but the final appeal was dismissed on June 29, 2017 by a judgment of non-trial trial, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on June 30, 2017 (Supreme Court Decision 2017Da223378). In addition, with respect to the case, the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office rendered a disposition against the Plaintiff on January 26, 2018, against which the Plaintiff alleged that he/she had committed age discrimination under the Elderly Employment Act.”

No. 9 of the first instance judgment, "No. 31" of the 19th sentence shall be applied to "No. 31, 33 through 35".

In the first column of the judgment of the court of first instance, “the act of causing monetary damage or social harm to a bank by intention or negligence” in the first column of “the criteria for disciplinary decision” in part 18 and 19 attached Table 2, shall be “the act of causing financial damage to a bank,” and “the act of violating Acts and subordinate statutes, relevant regulations or supervisory agencies’ orders, dispositions