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.

The reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is reasonable, and therefore, it is cited for this decision in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In the appellate court, the part that the intervenor unfairly participated in the process selected as the plaintiff's player on October 1, 2009 (hereinafter "this part of the misconduct"), among the contents of the misconduct in this case, shall be deemed to have been completed by the period of the two-year statute of limitations for the disciplinary action at the time of the request for the disciplinary decision ( February 2, 2012), as follows: ① this part of the misconduct in this case shall not be deemed to have been completed by the time when the intervenor entered into a regular contract after the plaintiff's child and entered into a re-contract on January 2, 2011; ② it shall not be deemed to have been completed by the statute of limitations for the disciplinary action; ② it shall be deemed the starting point of the statute of limitations for the plaintiff's administrative affairs audit on November 16, 201, and ③ even if the statute of limitations has expired, it shall be against the good faith principle, ④ even if the disciplinary action has been completed, it shall be considered to have other legitimate dismissal of the intervenor in this case.

However, as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited earlier, it is reasonable to view that the statute of limitations has expired for this part of the misconduct.

In addition, even according to all the evidence submitted, the intervenor was unfairly involved in the recruitment of his children as the plaintiff's player on October 1, 2009.

In addition, it is not sufficient to recognize that an unfair act was committed when concluding a fixed contract or renewal contract, and there is no other sufficient evidence to regard such an act as otherwise.

(In the decision of review of this case, this part of the irregularities cannot be a justifiable cause of disciplinary action.).