2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

A. An intervenor is a corporation established on September 15, 1972 and ordinarily employs 268 workers to engage in financial business, mutual aid business, etc., and the Plaintiff is a person subject to a transfer order on September 1, 2017 (hereinafter “instant personnel order”) as the head of the mutual aid support team through the head of the Dong branch, the director of the large school branch, the chief of the inspection office, the head of the public inspection agency, the head of the public project, the head of the flooding project, and the head of the flooding branch, etc., while serving as the team leader of mutual aid support (hereinafter “instant personnel order”).

B. On September 28, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy against unfair personnel management (hereinafter “instant remedy”). However, on November 23, 2017, the Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a judgment dismissing the instant remedy on the ground that “The instant remedy is justifiable, even if the nature of sanction is included in the personnel order, it cannot be deemed as a disciplinary action in itself, and the Plaintiff’s living disadvantage cannot be said to be significant in light of the business necessity of the appointment of a specialized overseas employee, and the instant personnel order cannot be deemed to be contrary to the principle of good faith. Therefore, the instant personnel order is justifiable.”

C. On December 29, 2017, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the initial inquiry tribunal, filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission as prescribed by Ministry of Labor No. 2017, 1290, but the National Labor Relations Commission, on March 12, 2018, rendered a decision dismissing the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the same ground as the initial inquiry tribunal.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision for reexamination”). / [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1-3, Gap evidence 6-1 and 6-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not consider the Plaintiff’s ability and aggravated health conditions, given excessive target values to the Plaintiff, and selected the results disadvantageous to the Plaintiff as assessment items, and issued the instant personnel order based on the results of the assessment.

The plaintiff is actually paid benefits due to the personnel order of this case.