1. All appeals filed by the defendant and the defendant assistant intervenor are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be those resulting from the participation in the appeal;

1. The grounds cited in the judgment of the court of first instance, which the defendant and the intervenor appealed, are not significantly different from those asserted in the judgment of the court of first instance.

In full view of the evidence submitted in the first instance trial, the collective agreement and the rules of employment stipulate that a medical certificate higher than a general hospital should be attached in order to apply for a leave of absence from office. The intervenor failed to meet the requirements for a leave of absence from office, such as attaching a medical certificate issued by a hospital other than a general hospital while applying for a leave of absence from office. The intervenor's health condition is not recognized as bad to the extent that one-month leave is needed, and thus, the requirements for a general leave of absence were not satisfied. Since the intervenor's without permission is deemed to exist to the extent that it is impossible to continue the employment contract by social norms due to the intervenor's absence from office, the fact-finding and judgment of the first instance court

Therefore, the court's explanation on the instant case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is cited by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the appeal of the defendant and the intervenor is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.