1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 1, 2001, the Plaintiff joined the 5th class of general service at the macro facilities management corporation, and promoted to the 4th class of general service on July 31, 2001, and served until December 31, 201.

B. On November 28, 2011, the Facility Management Corporation notified all employees including the Plaintiff of the notice of dismissal (the scheduled date of dismissal December 31, 201), and thereafter the said facility management Corporation was dissolved.

C. The Defendant was established on December 28, 201 in accordance with the “Ordinance on the Establishment and Operation of the Large Maritime Tourism Development Corporation” at the time of a show of show, and all employees of the said facility management corporation, except the Plaintiff, were employed through special employment procedures.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit, such as confirmation of the status of an employee, with the Changwon District Court Heading 2013Gahap115, and won the case on September 12, 2013. Although the Defendant appealed therefrom, the appeal was dismissed on June 19, 2014 by Busan High Court Decision 2013Na3524.

E. On July 7, 2014, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to be reinstated to Grade IV in general service, and ordered the Plaintiff to work as cultural facility team (B Park) and issued a personnel order to be appointed to the Vice-President of the Cultural Facility Team (hereinafter “instant personnel order”), and notified the Plaintiff of this order around that time.

[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without merit, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the ground for appeal

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Article 4 of the Defendant’s Personnel Regulations provides that “The types of work for employees shall be classified into general service, facility service, and professional service, and the class of the occupation shall be as specified in attached Table 1”; “The series of work and class of the occupation by attached Table 1” is as follows; and the Plaintiff shall be the head of the team as class 4 of general service.

B. Article 12 of the former Rules on the Organization of the Defendant related to the Defendant’s position provides that “the head of the team shall be appointed from among class IV to class V employees, from among class V employees, and from among class VI employees, from among class V to class VI employees,” the head of the team shall be appointed from September 16, 2013 to class V employees, and the vice-chairperson shall be appointed from among class VI or higher employees.”