1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

The intervenor in the position of the party to the decision on reexamination is a company that has its head office in Songpa-gu Seoul and employs 50 full-time workers and operates a foreign language private teaching institute, etc., and the plaintiff is a person who was enrolled in the intervenor on March 3, 2014 and worked as an English instructor.

As of January 28, 2015, the allocation of lectures to the plaintiff and the relief intervenor for the reduction of time, etc. shall be as of January 28, 2015

3.2. On two occasions, the Plaintiff’s lecture time was reduced to 27-41 hours a month due to the reduction of the number of students and the consolidation of lectures, etc. on 57-68 hours a month. On April 17, 2015, the Plaintiff dismissed the Plaintiff on the ground that “There is no improvement in the details of lectures, etc. that have been continuously raised from students and parents,” and on May 28, 2015, the Plaintiff returned to the Plaintiff on June 8, 2015.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff asserted that the allocation and dismissal disposition of the said demotion constituted unfair salary reduction and unfair dismissal respectively, and filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission on April 27, 2015.

On June 22, 2015, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission cannot be deemed as a disciplinary action for reduction of the hours of demotion, and the dismissal disposition dismissed the part of unfair reduction of the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on the ground that the intervenor’s withdrawal and the benefit of remedy ceases to exist.

(Seoul 2015, 110). On July 23, 2015, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the above initial inquiry court, filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on July 23, 2015, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the same ground as the initial inquiry court on October 23, 2015.

(C) On July 1, 2015, a participant who reduced the lecture hours and failed to allocate the Plaintiff the lecture hours to the Plaintiff on July 1, 2015, and did not allocate the lecture hours from July 23, 2015 to August 23, 2015.

(hereinafter referred to as “the reduction of the duration of the instant lecture and the allocation thereof”). The Plaintiff’s reduction of the duration of the instant lecture and the allocation thereof constitutes a disposition similar to the reduction of unfair salary or suspension.