1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified even if the parties' claims are examined by adding the evidence submitted to the court of first instance to the

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the addition or dismissal of part of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in the following Paragraph (2). Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420

2.No. 3 of the 4th page [based on recognition] column of the part added or filled by the addition shall add “each entry in Category A No. 25” to the column.

At the bottom of Part 6, the following shall be added to:

Even in the case of M, N, andO, the No. 10 of the No. 10 of the No. 10 of the Plaintiff’s revised and delivered to the Intervenor, the Plaintiff asserted that the dismissal of the instant case was unlawful as it constitutes a discriminatory disciplinary measure against the Intervenor only without referring it to the disciplinary procedure. However, the evidence submitted by the Intervenor alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the said M, etc. was absent without any explicit or implied permission from the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Accordingly, the Intervenor’s assertion on this part is not accepted. The Plaintiff’s assertion on the No. 7th 14-16 of the No. 7 of the “No. 14-16 of the Plaintiff is difficult to take advantage of the Plaintiff.”

An intervenor’s failure to submit a limit prescribed in Article 28 of the Rules of Employment before and after departure constitutes a ground for disciplinary action under Article 72 subparag. 1 of the Rules of Employment because it constitutes “violation of the rules prescribed by a hotel.”

However, the attitude of the participant's appearance from the date of the plaintiff's assertion is unfaithful.

It is also an unauthorized outing out of the country in terms of objection to the instruction of his superior.