1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal, including the part arising from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for a dismissal or addition as stated in paragraph (2). Thus, this is acceptable as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(The grounds alleged by the plaintiff in this Court while filing an appeal are not significantly different from the contents alleged by the plaintiff in the first instance court, and even if all evidence submitted to the court of first instance and this court are examined, the fact-finding and the determination of the first instance court are justified). 2. The part which was cited or added to the second instance

A. We reverse the part of the judgment of the court of first instance as “less determined” of No. 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance 18. B.

In addition, paragraph 2 of Section 7 of Section 1 of Section 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance added "entry in Section 4 of Section 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance," and Section 2 of Section 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance, "(The plaintiff did not take over the elderly welfare center until February 16, 2015, and thus could not expect revenue and expenditure for 2015 on the premise that the intervenor was a full-time employee. However, as seen above, the plaintiff was taken over at least a full-time employee around December 2014 or around January 2015 and it can be found that at least the participant was clearly aware that he was a full-time employee." 3) 7 Section 5 of Section 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance (the plaintiff's above assertion cannot be accepted).