1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

The court's explanation of this case is identical to the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, since Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are cited as it is, except where the court stated in paragraph (2) below or where the plaintiff added a decision on the argument that was made in the trial of first instance under paragraph (3) below.

(1) In addition, the court of first instance that rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion, even if all the evidence submitted in the first instance and the first instance court were examined, does not significantly differ from the contents of the Plaintiff’s assertion in the court of first instance. Of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, part of the first instance that the Plaintiff submitted was dismissed to the court of first instance, and that part of the evidence submitted to the court of first instance was submitted to the court of

(c) Paragraph (1) of this Article shall apply with the following modifications:

“1) An intervenor 11, 12, and 18 who asserted the Plaintiff’s assertion refuses to work collectively for the purpose of opposing circular transfer and holds a general meeting of a union member during working hours constitutes an industrial action. Since circular transfer is subject to high level personnel management rights, the purpose of the industrial action is not legitimate, as it does not constitute a matter of high level of personnel management rights, and thus, it is unlawful as well as procedurally without going through the Labor Relations Commission’s mediation procedures, and even if the intervenor 11 and 12 were designated as an executor of the essential business, it violates Article 42-2(2) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act.

Even if an intervenor 11, 12, and 18 holds a general meeting of an association member with intent to oppose circular transfer constitutes an industrial action, not an industrial action, but an industrial action, it is unlawful by the intervenor’s failure to undergo prior consultation with the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 10 of the collective agreement and to notify the head of his/her affiliated office thereof in order to conduct an association activity during

A plan for the implementation of circular transfer of the railroad union.