1. The Intervenor’s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are borne by the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

purport.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following additional determination as to the part which was used by the intervenor and the matters alleged by the intervenor, which are emphasized by the court of first instance. Thus, this is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

(A) The content of the Intervenor’s assertion in the first instance trial is not significantly different from the content as alleged in the first instance trial, and even if all of the evidence submitted in the first instance and the first instance trial are examined, the judgment of the first instance court that rejected the Intervenor’s assertion is justifiable). [The part written after dismissal] The “sexual harassment” in the second instance column inside the third page of the first instance judgment and the second instance column inside the second instance judgment is regarded as “sexual harassment.”

The 7th page 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance is the witness of the court of first instance.

Each of the 7th judgments of the first instance court, 16th and 9th and 10th, "this court" shall be deemed "court of the first instance."

【Supplementary Decision】

A. 1) The summary of the Defendant and the Intervenor’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s statement that “The victim was able to have his/her appearance as soon as possible” at the time of the class on May 19, 2017 constitutes sexual harassment falling under the grounds for disciplinary action, as an assessment of the other party’s appearance. 2) As such, a disciplinary action taken by the Intervenor against the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have remarkably lost validity under the social norms, it does not deviate from or abuse the authority of disciplinary discretion.

B. 1) First of all, the issue of whether a worker's misconduct constitutes grounds for disciplinary action or not should be determined by the disciplinary committee, etc. through specific materials, and it does not necessarily mean that the grounds for disciplinary action are limited only to the grounds for disciplinary action prescribed by the rules of employment or disciplinary regulations stated in the resolution or written disciplinary action.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Nu16684, Mar. 14, 1997).