2. The costs of appeal, including the part arising from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

2. Additional determination as to the assertion regarding non-performance of the original duty

A. In a case where the employer, upon the recommendation of the Regional Labor Relations Commission, reinstated the employee who was dismissed, had been dismissed until the date of the dismissal, and caused the employee to work to be reinstated in consideration of personnel order, operational needs of the employer and changes in the working environment, etc. under the premise that the dismissal is valid, such work falls within the scope of the management right, which is the inherent authority of the employer’s own right of use, even though it differs from the previous one,

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da47074, May 16, 1997; 2010Da52041, Feb. 28, 2013). (B)

According to the facts of the first instance judgment, the personnel order of this case is to reinstate the Plaintiff as at the time of the instant ipso facto retirement, and the intervenor, on August 18, 201, who was at the time of the instant ipso facto retirement, dealt with the date of the Plaintiff’s provision of labor due to the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act as a annual leave on March 2, 2011, when the Plaintiff was temporarily dismissed on March 2, 2011, and the Plaintiff was assigned to and dismissed from the instant hospital B and appointed other employees to the instant hospital. The final judgment of this case was that “the instant ipso facto retirement disposition of this case was unlawful without undergoing disciplinary proceedings prescribed by the collective agreement.” Thus, at the time of the instant personnel order, the Plaintiff was under the status that imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment for the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act became final and conclusive on August 18, 2011.