The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the court's decision to this case under paragraph (2) of this Article, and therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of

2. The Plaintiff repeats his argument in the first instance trial as it is, and argues that “The first instance judgment erreds in the meaning of “a rejection from the standing committee” and “a presentation to the plenary session” as the grounds for appeal, and further, the appointment consent of three successful applicants was erroneous in the process of re-determination to the plenary session.”

However, even if all the evidence presented at the first instance court were examined, the first instance court’s rejection of the Plaintiff’s assertion is justifiable. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the meaning of “ rejection of a bill within the standing committee” used in “A” (Rules of the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Council Meeting) or “to present a bill at the plenary session” or by misapprehending the facts concerning the circumstances leading up to the reorganization of the instant appointment bill

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance, which dismissed the plaintiff's claim based on the conclusion, is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of appeal are borne by the losing plaintiff.