1. The request for retrial of this case is dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff asserts the following grounds for the request for retrial of this case.

First, although the plaintiff's lawsuit seeking confirmation of the right to guarantee of status is an administrative case, which is subject to an administrative court's judgment, the court that rendered the judgment subject to a retrial was judged as an appellate court against the judgment of the first instance court rendered by the district court that dealt with it as a civil case, and such judgment subject to a retrial constitutes grounds for retrial under Article 451 (1) 1 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a retrial. Second, even though the plaintiff submitted evidence that corresponds to the plaintiff's argument as to evidence Nos. 8 through 17 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the plaintiff submitted evidence that corresponds to the plaintiff's argument, this court did not make any judgment on the judgment subject to a retrial, and therefore, such judgment constitutes grounds for retrial under Article 451 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act.

On the other hand, the plaintiff filed a claim of this case on the ground that the plaintiff, a member of the defendant, was at a disadvantage in relation to the status of union activity, which is "the defendant's disciplinary action in this case at the end of the defendant's activity for improving the working conditions." Thus, the defendant's right to be guaranteed the status pursuant to Article 12 of the Rules of the defendant and subparagraph 1 of the attached Table of the Guarantee of Status to guarantee the defendant's right to guarantee the defendant's status pursuant to Article 12 of the Rules of the defendant and subparagraph 1 of the attached Table of the Guarantee of Status, and the court of first instance dismissed the plaintiff's claim on the ground that there is no evidence to regard the disciplinary action in this case as "the disadvantage in relation to union activity" under Article 12 of the Rules of the defendant and there is no evidence to regard it as "the disadvantage in relation to union activity." The court of first instance, upon the plaintiff's appeal, has