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.

On July 1, 1929, an intervenor was established on July 1, 1929 and ordinarily employed approximately 4,700 workers, engaging in banking business as a major business. The Plaintiff was assigned personal loan counseling services on December 18, 201, when he worked for the real estate financial team as a director treatment from April 1, 201 to the real estate financial team as of September 1, 2004.

On March 17, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission on the ground that the instant transfer order is unfair, and the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on May 12, 2016 on the ground that the instant transfer order is a legitimate exercise of personnel authority.

On June 7, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission. On August 23, 2016, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the ground that “The instant transfer order is difficult to see that the Plaintiff’s living disadvantage is larger than the business necessity, and it was also subject to the procedure required under the good faith principle, and thus, it is determined to exercise legitimate personnel rights

(2) The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the Re-examination ruling of this case is based on the following facts: (a) there is no dispute: (b) Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, and Eul evidence No. 1; and (c) the purport of the entire argument as to the legitimacy of the Re-examination ruling of this case; (b) the Plaintiff retired from office at real estate financial team; (c) two members of the board of directors of real estate financial team retired from office and reduced the size of organization; (d) the Plaintiff recruited the director of the division in charge after the instant re-examination; and (e) the instant re-examination order was issued immediately after the Plaintiff’s refusal of special retirement; and (e) the instant re-examination order was not due to the need for business to reduce organization, but due to the need for business to force retirement; and (e) the duties performed by the Plaintiff after the