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

A. On August 6, 1986, the Plaintiff was appointed and served as a public official belonging to the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) and was elected as the Chairman on February 1, 2012 (hereinafter “B”).

After being elected as the Chairperson on February 1, 2012, the Plaintiff went to work for B office located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and went to work for B office in Yeongdeungpo-gu without the permission of the head of the relevant department from February 29, 2012 to December 27, 2012, and was ordered three times from the head of the relevant department (on April 13, 2012, April 20, 2012, April 20, 201, and May 3, 2012) to return to work, the Plaintiff refused to return to work.

-foundeds: Articles 48 (Duty of Fidelity), 49 (Duty of Fidelity), and 50 (Prohibition of Deserting Office) of the Local Public Officials Act;

B. On December 27, 2012, the Intervenor held a personnel committee with respect to the Plaintiff and decided to dismiss the Plaintiff, and notified the Plaintiff on January 16, 2013.

(hereinafter “instant dismissal disposition”). C.

On April 8, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant dismissal disposition constitutes unfair labor practices, and filed an application for remedy with the Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission for unfair labor practices. The Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for remedy on July 8, 2013.

On July 8, 2013, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the above initial inquiry tribunal, filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission. On September 12, 2013, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the said application for reexamination.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision for reexamination”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, 3, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, and Gap evidence 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

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

A. On March 3, 2010, the disposition rejecting the report of the establishment of the labor union on March 3, 2010 against B by the Minister of Employment and Labor as of March 1, 2010 of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 is null and void because the defect is serious and clear, and thus, it cannot be deemed a legal labor union that fails to meet the formal requirements. Even if