1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a foundation established with the aim of contributing to the realization of citizen cultural welfare through the creation and operation of cultural and arts spaces that can expand citizens' opportunities to enjoy culture and contribute to the promotion of culture. The plaintiff is a person who has joined the defendant as a dance member around 1986.

B. 1) On December 12, 2004, the Sejong Culture Center and the Sejong Culture Center Branch of the Korean Culture and Arts Trade Union agreed to implement the art members evaluation system in order to improve the skills of its members and to secure their group competitiveness and self-support. The main contents are the same as the written labor-management agreement in attached Form 1. (hereinafter “this case’s labor-management agreement”).

(2) On April 21, 2005, the Plaintiff became a member subject to evaluation under the labor-management agreement of this case, and he received 6.75 points in the arts map evaluation conducted on April 28, 2005, and became a person subject to practical evaluation by receiving 5.33 points in the arts map evaluation conducted on May 6, 2005 and receiving 5.33 points in the arts map evaluation conducted on May 6, 2005.

In addition, the plaintiff received warnings from 7.8 points in the first practical evaluation conducted on June 30, 2005 and received warnings from 7.8 points in the first practical evaluation [the plaintiff recorded the lowest among 17 persons subject to evaluation. The lowest points out of the above 17 evaluation points (the average point of 13.659 points, the minority point of 13.69 points) excluding the plaintiff were 12 points and only the plaintiff was a person subject to the second practical evaluation with the second practical evaluation that was implemented on July 11, 2005], and was submitted to the Disciplinary Committee (the Personnel Committee) after receiving warnings from 7.6 points in the second practical evaluation conducted on July 11, 2005.

3) The Defendant held a personnel committee and dismissed the Plaintiff on July 27, 2005 on the ground that “It is deemed impossible to maintain the Plaintiff’s membership status to the extent that the Plaintiff’s skill significantly falls short of that of other members, and that it is considerably impossible to maintain the Plaintiff’s skill at the time of public performance to the extent that the other members and the Hasheshesheshe may not become his/her mother”