1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

1. The reason why the court should explain this part of the decision is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the decision is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the dismissal of the instant case is unlawful for the following reasons.

Therefore, the judgment of the retrial of this case must be revoked on different premises.

1) According to the rules of employment of the intervenor who is the subject of the decision on disciplinary action, the decision on disciplinary action against the plaintiff shall be made by the intervenor's disciplinary committee which is not the personnel committee of the intervenor.

Nevertheless, the personnel committee of the intervenor who was not the intervenor's disciplinary committee decided the dismissal of this case.

B) According to the former part of Article 56-2 of the Rules of Employment of an intervenor who has no request for a disciplinary decision against the intervenor's disciplinary committee, "the disciplinary committee shall make a disciplinary decision within one month from the date of receipt of the request for disciplinary decision." Thus, in order for the intervenor to make a disciplinary decision against the plaintiff, the intervenor must make a written request for disciplinary decision to the disciplinary committee. However, it is obvious that the written request for disciplinary decision (Evidence A 3) dated August 22, 2016, in the name of the intervenor representative director D, is a false document. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the intervenor made a legitimate request for disciplinary decision to the disciplinary committee. (C) The intervenor's disciplinary committee should not be deemed to have made a legitimate disciplinary decision within one month from the date of receipt of the request for disciplinary decision. Although the request for disciplinary decision and the chairperson of the disciplinary committee should be distinguished, the intervenor's representative and director D shall be the disciplinary committee.