1. All appeals of this case are dismissed.

2. Of the costs of appeal, the part resulting from the intervention is the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, is the same as the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the judgment of the defendant and the intervenor is added as follows

Therefore, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The further determination of this Court

A. (1) As to the grounds for dismissal, the intervenor’s assertion that his act does not constitute a ground for disciplinary action as stipulated in Article 66 subparag. 6 of the Rules of Employment of the Plaintiff. However, such assertion is not permissible as it constitutes an unlawful addition of the grounds for disposition.

Even if there are different views, the intervenor’s act constitutes grounds for disciplinary action stipulated in Article 66 subparag. 6 of the Rules of Employment of the Plaintiff, as if the first instance court properly determined.

The plaintiff added "when a serious defect, such as false entry, is discovered after the entry, or when he/she entered the office by other unlawful means," as stipulated in Article 48 subparagraph 5 of the Rules of Employment after the filing of the lawsuit in this case, but it is not permissible to allow it, and the intervenor does not fall under Article 48 subparagraph 5 of the Rules of Employment.

Therefore, the first instance judgment is unlawful on a different premise.

(2) On the grounds delineated below, the Defendant and the Intervenor’s assertion on this part cannot be accepted.

(A) According to the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 13, the Plaintiff’s personnel committee opened on November 11, 2013, to deliberate on the matter of disciplinary action against the Intervenor, based on the fact that the Intervenor’s acceptance of money and valuables was reported through various media and the Plaintiff’s reputation was defiled, and that the Intervenor was employed upon recognition of the Intervenor’s work experience at the time of employment, but the Plaintiff would not have employed the Intervenor at the time of employment.

Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case.