1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

On December 23, 2013, as a public institution affiliated with the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism established pursuant to the Game Industry Promotion Act, the details and details of the decision on reexamination (hereinafter referred to as “participating”) is responsible for securing the ethics and public nature of game products, preventing the inducement or encouragement of speculative spirit, protecting juveniles, and preventing the distribution of illegal game products.

On December 23, 2013, the Plaintiff joined the Intervenor and served as B.

On September 9, 2015, an intervenor issued an order to dismiss the Plaintiff from position from position on the ground that the Plaintiff’s ability to continue to perform his/her duties is insufficient in light of the Plaintiff’s past disciplinary power and that investigation related to the act of ex-ante disclosure of enforcement information is underway. On September 10, 2015 to December 31, 2015, and on December 31, 2015, the Intervenor issued an order to extend the removal from position (hereinafter “instant removal from position”).

On February 17, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy against the removal from position with the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission. On April 7, 2016, the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on the ground that “the removal from position of this case was abused due to the lack of reasonable and justifiable grounds.”

The Intervenor appealed and filed an application for review with the National Labor Relations Commission on May 19, 2016, and the National Labor Relations Commission accepted the Plaintiff’s application for review on August 5, 2016, on the ground that “the Intervenor may be deemed inappropriate to perform his duties as B, and there is no change in the circumstances at the time of the removal from position, and it may be anticipated that the Plaintiff’s return to B would be likely to interfere with the performance of his duties, and thus, the removal from position of this case cannot be deemed to have seriously abused discretion or lack rationality.”

The judgment of the retrial in this case shall be subject to the judgment of the retrial in this case (the fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap 1, 2, Eul 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.