1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff was established on March 29, 1984 and established in Jung-gu, Seoul, with its head office located in Seoul and approximately 4,000 full-time workers engaged in information and communications business, communications sales business, etc.

B. On December 21, 2015, the Intervenor A, B, C, and D (hereinafter referred to as “participating 1, 2, 3, 3, and 4, and the Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s participation together with the Intervenor’s participation is called “participating 4,” and the Intervenor’s participation as “E Team” and “F Team (hereinafter referred to as “F Team”) located in Seoul, and the transfer order was issued (hereinafter referred to as “the instant transfer order”) with E Team and F Team when collectively referring to E Team and F Team.

C. The Intervenor asserted that the instant transfer order is unfair, and on March 18, 2016, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy for unfair change of occupation with Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission No. 2016Da629.

On June 7, 2016, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a judgment dismissing the Intervenor’s application for remedy on the ground that it is justifiable inasmuch as the instant transfer order does not constitute an alteration of a labor contract that requires the consent of the intervenors, and the need for business operations is recognized and the disadvantages in their lives are not excessive.

On July 21, 2016, the intervenors were dissatisfied with the above initial inquiry court and applied for reexamination to the National Labor Relations Commission by 2016da818.

On October 13, 2016, the National Labor Relations Commission revoked the above initial inquiry court on the ground that the instant transfer order does not constitute a change of a labor contract that requires the consent of the intervenors, but is not recognized as a need for business, and there is any disadvantage in life, and is unfair because it takes place without the minimum consultation procedure, and determined that the instant transfer order was revoked as an unfair change of position, and that the intervenors are reinstated to their original position.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). (e)

The plaintiff's internal rules relating to this case are as follows.