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 is a juristic person established with the aim of collecting, arranging, and translation of the classical literature in accordance with the Korean Traditional Translation Institute Act, enacted on August 3, 2007, thereby contributing to building the foundation for Korean academic research and contributing to the inheritance and development of traditional culture. The Plaintiff carries out projects, such as collecting, arranging, and researching the classical literature, compiling, translation, and dissemination of classical literature, training of human resources for the organizing and translation of classical literature, training of classical literature related to classical literature, exchange and cooperation with the classical literature, and domestic and overseas exchange and cooperation with respect to classical literature.

An intervenor is a worker who was employed by the plaintiff on April 1, 2010.

B. On July 3, 2015, the Plaintiff issued a personnel order to dismiss the Intervenor from position as of July 6, 2015 pursuant to Article 23(1)1 of the Personnel Regulations, because the Intervenor’s ability to perform his/her duties is insufficient and his/her service record is not good.

(hereinafter “Release from position”. On the other hand, on September 4, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the intervenors that they will be dismissed on October 6, 2015 pursuant to Article 20 subparag. 5 of the Personnel Regulations if they are not assigned to a position by October 5, 2015.

After that, on October 6, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the intervenors that they will be dismissed on a yearly basis as of October 6, 2015 pursuant to Article 20 subparagraph 5 of the Personnel Management Regulations.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant dismissal”). C.

On September 25, 2015, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission (Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission) No. 2015da2523 regarding the removal from position of the instant case.

On November 24, 2015, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Intervenor’s application for remedy on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s dismissal from position pursuant to Article 23 of the Personnel Regulations is justifiable as it deems that the Plaintiff lacks the Intervenor’s ability to perform his/her duties.”

Meanwhile, on November 2, 2015, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission (Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission) No. 2015, 2802 on November 2, 2015.

The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission's dismissal from position on December 29, 2015 is just, and the personnel regulations are just.