2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the costs incurred by participation.

A. On October 1, 1991, the Plaintiff was dismissed while serving as the deputy head of the Ulsan Factory Technical Team upon being employed by C Co., Ltd. (the Intervenor Company was merged with the Defendant Intervenor Company on December 26, 2002; hereinafter “ Intervenor Company”).

B. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) was established on September 3, 199 and established on September 3, 199, and is a corporation that produces Aluminium pressure products, etc. using approximately 1,500 full-time workers at the permanent residence of Gyeong-do.

C. On May 31, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy with the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission on July 1, 2015, asserting that the Intervenor’s notice of retirement was unreasonable. On August 31, 2015, the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission determined that the notice of retirement to the Plaintiff was a legitimate exercise of personnel authority, since it was disposed of according to the rules of employment as the Plaintiff’s notice of retirement to the Plaintiff’s retirement was remarkably diminished due to personal disease.

(In Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission on August 31, 2015, 2015, 2015. (hereinafter referred to as the "First Inquiry Tribunal") D.

On September 30, 2015, the Plaintiff served a written request for review on September 30, 2015, and thereafter filed an application for review seeking cancellation of the initial inquiry tribunal with the Central Labor Regional Committee (hereinafter “Defendant Committee”) on October 1, 2015. The Defendant Committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on December 30, 2015 (hereinafter “instant request for review”).

(e) On January 13, 2016, the Plaintiff served the instant written ruling on the reexamination and filed the instant lawsuit on January 26, 2016. [Grounds for recognition] In the absence of dispute, the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8 (including a tentative number if there is a tentative number; hereinafter the same shall apply).

each entry, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful

A. After the Plaintiff’s assertion on his temporary retirement from office due to his personal disease, the Intervenor granted the Plaintiff a birth different from the previous one, and conducted business diagnosis and business assessment without any education on his duties, and given the lower grade. The written diagnosis is written.