1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

1. Basic facts

A. On April 1, 1988, the Plaintiff was employed as the employee of the Defendant B church, and he was employed as the employee of the Defendant C church on January 1, 2010, and after the change of the affiliation to the employee of the Defendant C church, he was employed as the head of the general affairs of the Defendant C church

B. On September 20, 2018, Defendant B’s association issued a disposition to dispatch the Plaintiff to the head of the welfare administration team of the welfare state of the Plaintiff as the head of the welfare administration team of the Plaintiff, from among the head of the general affairs of the Defendant C church (hereinafter “instant dispatch disposition”).

C. On September 1, 2019, Defendant C Educational Association revoked the above salary reduction disposition against the Plaintiff while the instant lawsuit was pending, and instead paid to the Plaintiff the amount reduced on November 19, 2019, the Plaintiff was dismissed on November 12, 2019 (hereinafter “instant dismissal”).

On February 7, 2020, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy against unfair dismissal with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, and the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a judgment on February 7, 2020 that the dismissal of the Plaintiff against the Defendant C Educational Association is unfair, and thus, the Plaintiff is reinstated to his original position.

Accordingly, on April 1, 2020, Defendant Chys notified the Plaintiff on April 14, 2020 that he will be reinstated to the chief of the general affairs department of Defendant Chys Association.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 12 through 14 (including branch numbers in the case of provisional evidence), Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Since the personnel order authority of the Plaintiff is not Defendant B but Defendant C Educational Association, the instant dispatch disposition against the Plaintiff by Defendant B, who is not authorized to issue personnel orders against the Plaintiff, is null and void.

B. The dismissal disposition of this case made by Defendant Chys Association against the Plaintiff is null and void, since Defendant Chys did not comply with legitimate procedures at the time of dismissal of the Plaintiff and there was no ground for dismissal.

3. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The Defendants’ assertion that Defendant C&C returned to the Plaintiff, thus, the instant case.