1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the judgment on unfair conversion and placement shall be revoked, and the plaintiff shall be entitled to that part.

1. On February 12, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the first instance court for the revocation of the review decision regarding unfair disciplinary action and unfair conversion placement.

The first instance court, which accepted all the plaintiff's claims, revoked the above review decision, and this court, prior to the remanding of the appeal by the defendant and the intervenor, dismissed all the appeals by the defendant and the defendant assistant intervenor.

The Intervenor appealed to the Supreme Court on this issue. The Supreme Court reversed the part of the retrial decision on February 12, 2014 concerning "unfair conversion" before the remand, and remanded this part to this Court, and dismissed the remainder of the Intervenor's appeal.

Therefore, the Supreme Court's decision on February 12, 2014, which became final and conclusive on the part of the decision of reexamination, is limited to the portion of the decision of reexamination on the "unfair conversion" of the plaintiff that was destroyed and remanded.

2. The reasoning for this part of the decision on reexamination of this case is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance (Articles 8(2) and 4(2) of the Act on Litigation, and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be cited as it is.

3. Whether a decision by a retrial on unfair conversion and placement is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's intervenor is carrying out business affairs that are not speedy due to the conversion of this case, raising problems to the connected workers, and taking disciplinary power of the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff has faithfully worked without being subject to disciplinary action on the ground of the delay in business affairs, and the connected workers are not aware of the plaintiff's specific working behavior, and most disciplinary power was conducted at the time when the plaintiff was engaged in labor union activities.

In addition, due to the conversion arrangement of this case, the plaintiff has reduced average 41% of the plaintiff's salary and experienced great difficulties in adjusting the new work, and the intervenor is the plaintiff.