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.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: "The defendant and the intervenor appealed against the defendant and the intervenor." The court dismissed the above judgment on February 8, 2017 (2016Nu50206), and the plaintiff's appeal is currently pending in the Supreme Court (2017Du38560). The court deleted "other domestic airlines are not likely to completely prohibit the domestic flight crew from raising salt." The plaintiff's appeal is as stated in the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following additional determination as to the matters emphasized in the court of first instance, and this court shall accept it in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. According to the freedom of business guaranteed by the Constitution, the Plaintiff’s summary 1 of the Plaintiff’s assertion is deemed to have the appearance provision of this case imposing certain restrictions on his/her employees’ uniforms and appearance in order to secure customer confidence and enhance brand value, and its necessity and rationality is recognized. Therefore, the employee belonging to the Plaintiff is obligated to comply with the instant provision. Since the instant case conflicts with the Plaintiff’s freedom of business and the Intervenor’s right to pursue happiness and the right to freedom of action, the principle of excessive prohibition, which is the criteria for determining whether the State’s act infringes on the Plaintiff’s fundamental rights, cannot be applied, and it is difficult to deem that the instant provision excessively infringes on the Intervenor’s fundamental rights. 2) In the case of private law (private law) whose private autonomy is guaranteed, the violation of the principle of equality under the Constitution can be recognized only in exceptional cases beyond the permissible limits in light of sound common sense

However, the provisions of this case are minority.