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.

The reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is reasonable, and therefore, it is cited for this decision in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In the appellate court, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff’s request for remedy against the first letter of personnel order of this case was unlawful after the lapse of the period of request for remedy, and that the Plaintiff’s request for remedy was subject to unfavorable measures, such as unfair assignment of personnel (transfer, disciplinary action) and grant of personnel at the lowest level, which the Intervenor continuously committed to the Plaintiff after the first letter of personnel order, but was erroneous as it was subject to the first letter of personnel order, and thus, was unlawful.

However, the above disadvantage disposition asserted by the Plaintiff appears to refer to the personnel order of June 16, 2007 (the first personnel order of this case), the transfer order of November 26, 2007, the personnel order of June 3, 2010, the cancellation and transfer order of the assignment of a position of April 16, 201, the personnel order of 2008 to 2011, and the disciplinary action of July 9, 201 and August 3, 2012, etc. of the Plaintiff. It is evident that all these measures were taken place three months prior to the date of the request by the Plaintiff for remedy by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, even if the plaintiff seems to have made a request for remedy against such personnel orders of the intervenor, they also recognize that the period of remedy has expired.

In addition, in addition to the second personnel order of this case, there is no evidence to deem that the intervenor was disadvantageous to the plaintiff within the period of the request for remedy, and that the plaintiff was subject to the request for remedy of this case.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is rejected.

Next, the plaintiff asserts that the second personnel order of this case is unlawful since the necessity of transfer is not recognized.

However, this is repeated in the first instance trial, and it is based on the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited earlier.