1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. Of the total litigation costs, 80% is the Plaintiff, and the remainder is the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the basic facts is as follows, except for the cases where part of the basic facts is rewritten or added and deleted as follows, and it is identical to the part of “1. Basic Facts” from No. 5 to No. 512 of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

[Supplementary or additional deletions] On the third side of the judgment of the court of first instance, paragraphs (1) through (3) shall be followed as follows.

“(1) An incorporated association G (hereinafter referred to as “G”)

(1) On April 19, 200, the term “university admission-related administrative work guidelines” (hereinafter “instant work guidelines”) under the provision that strengthens the standards for issuing a certificate of business performance to the extent that the number of classes during the national competition cover one or more classes, and the other party completes three classes.

(A) prepare and notify this to the head of the branch office of the City/Do under its jurisdiction."The criteria for issuance of G Gyeonggi Performance Certificates" in 4, 12, and 13 of the first instance judgment shall be applied to the "Standards for Issuance prescribed in the Business Guidelines of this case".

Part 4 of the judgment of the first instance shall be deleted from Part 14 to Part 15 (4).

Part 4 of the first instance judgment, "(5)" in Part 16 shall be added to "(4)".

Part 5 of the judgment of the first instance shall be deleted from "illegally issued" in Part 8.

Part 5 of the judgment of the first instance shall be added to not more than 9, as follows:

progress of the proceeding of a related lawsuit (1) G is as follows: I and L (hereinafter referred to as "I, etc.")

) The certificate of athletic performance of September 16, 2014 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “certificate of athletic performance of this case”).

The head of the OG Secretariat who directed the issuance was removed from office on the grounds of false issuance of a certificate of sports performance.

On June 2016, theO received a remedy order from the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission. G applied for review, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for review on October 13, 2016.

G has filed a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the above ruling on review.