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 reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except where the plaintiff used the case in the judgment of the court of first instance or added the plaintiff's assertion and judgment again in the judgment of the court of first instance.

Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be quoted as it is.

2. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which has been dried, shall be subject to the following parts from 2.1 to 1.1 of the judgment of the court of first instance:

On December 9, 2016, the Plaintiff refused to grant approval according to the representative director’s business instruction on the order of personnel appointment of reinstated E after childcare leave on July 6, 2016; ② was treated disadvantageously, such as failing to prepare a proper working space for E reinstated on July 7, 2016; ③ was sexual harassment upon the statement that causes sexual humiliation to E on July 7, 2016; ④ was sexual harassment on December 29, 2015 or on December 30, 2015, the Plaintiff received money and valuables, etc. from the head of F Bank’s branch and site store equivalent to KRW 30,000,000 at the market price from the head of the F Bank’s articles of incorporation, who is related to duties, on December 30, 2015.

“The grounds for the instant disciplinary action” (hereinafter referred to as “instant grounds for disciplinary action”).

) On the same day, the Intervenor filed a petition for review of disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on the same day against the Intervenor. However, on December 29, 2016, the Plaintiff Disciplinary Committee decided to dismiss the Intervenor, on the ground that both the grounds for disciplinary action of this case were recognized and the grounds for disciplinary action corresponding to suspension from office are concurrent, and thus, the Plaintiff made a resolution to review disciplinary action against the Intervenor. On January 2, 2017, the Plaintiff served a written resolution on the grounds for disciplinary action (re-deliberation) and a written resolution on disciplinary action (re-deliberation) to dismiss the Intervenor (hereinafter “instant dismissal disposition”).

(i) "";

3. The plaintiff's assertion that this court renewed again and the addition of the plaintiff's assertion

A. As to the grounds for the disciplinary action on the part of the instant sexual harassment, the Plaintiff is the Intervenor.