1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

The grounds alleged by the defendant in the trial while appealed from the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from those alleged by the defendant in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted in the course of the lawsuit and the trial to the court of first instance are reviewed together with the allegations by the parties, the judgment of the court of first instance, which accepted the plaintiff's

Therefore, the reasoning for this Court regarding this case is that the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification of the written judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this Court shall accept it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

[Revision] Part of the first instance court's judgment "Nos. 4 and 5" shall be raised as "Nos. 2 through 5" in Part 4 of the first instance judgment.

The following writing boxes shall be added between 4 pages 14 and 15 of the judgment document of the first instance.

④ On the other hand, around September 2017, the Plaintiff prepared a letter to the effect that C will not be sent back to C’s spouse again. On the other hand, C’s spouse, around December 2017, clarified C’s intention to divorce and filed a divorce lawsuit against C around March 2018.

The Plaintiff and C came to have met on several occasions from around that time to July 2018.

After the judgment of the first instance court, Article 3 of the Public Officials Service Regulations, which was prepared with the delegation of Article 67 of the State Public Officials Act, provides that “public officials, in compliance with the statutes and official orders, shall establish the work discipline and respect the order.” However, this is merely a specification of the duty of public officials as stipulated in the State Public Officials Act, and thus, cannot be deemed a ground for different interpretation.”

After the judgment of the first instance court No. 6, No. 12, “No. 6.”, the mere fact that the Plaintiff is a person who works for the same workplace as the Plaintiff is the other party to the judgment, violates the laws and regulations related to his/her status.