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 part of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the plaintiff in this court is not significantly different from the part claimed by the plaintiff in the court of first instance, and even if the plaintiff re-examines the plaintiff's assertion based on the evidence submitted in the court of first instance and the court of first instance, the dismissal of the plaintiff in this case against the intervenor cannot be deemed as having a serious defect in the disciplinary procedure, and the dismissal of the intervenor in this case is not recognized as the grounds for the disciplinary action and there

Therefore, the reasoning for the instant court’s judgment regarding the instant case is as follows: “The Intervenor’s request for retrial on December 14, 2016” of the 3th 1st 3th 1st 2th 2th 3th 2016, and “the Plaintiff’s request for retrial on December 8, 2016”; “ September 21, 2017” of the 2nd 7th 2nd 7th 7th 7th 2016, and “the court” of the 8th 9th 9th 8th 9th 9 as “the first instance court’s first 1st 2th 3th 3th 201”; and thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case should be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is just, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.