1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff Company is a company that employs approximately 190 persons from approximately 513-16, Gangdong-gu, Seoul, and operates food materials supply and computer system, and the Defendant’s Intervenor entered the Geum River Development Industry Co., Ltd. on June 16, 198 (the trade name of the Plaintiff Company was changed on March 24, 2006) and worked as a company in charge of inventory management of the fashion team production and management of the fashion team, which was divided by the Plaintiff Company on April 1, 2009 (hereinafter “instant transfer”).

B. On June 3, 2009, the Intervenor unilaterally changed the Intervenor’s affiliation to the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission by asserting that the transfer of the instant case constitutes an unfair transfer (Seoul District Court Decision 2009Da1189), and the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed an application for remedy on July 30, 2009, stating that “the transfer of the instant case was made with the Intervenor’s prior and comprehensive consent, and is not unfair.”

Accordingly, the intervenor filed an application for review with the National Labor Relations Commission, and the National Labor Relations Commission revoked the initial trial tribunal and granted the application for remedy to the effect that “In the case of a change in the position of an employee due to a corporate division, it is reasonable to obtain the consent of the individual employee in terms of the protection of the employee or to exercise the right to refuse for a considerable period of time. However, in the case of this case, it is difficult to deem that the personnel exchange without the consent of the employee among the affiliated companies was established as a practice without the consent of the employee, and therefore, the transfer of this case constitutes an unfair measure that deviates from the scope of the personnel discretion.

(Central 209da731, hereinafter referred to as "the Judgment of this case"). [The grounds for recognition: Evidence A 1-1, 2-2, and Evidence A 2-1, 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiff company's assertion (1) workers.