The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the participation.

On April 5, 2011, the Plaintiff is a corporation that was established on April 5, 201 in accordance with the Local Public Enterprises Act and the Ordinance on the Establishment and Operation of AD Corporation and conducts an urban development project, etc. with approximately 230 full-time workers.

On April 28, 2011, an intervenor joined the Plaintiff Corporation and served in the urban development room until December 7, 2014. From December 8, 2014 to March 31, 2019, the intervenor served as the team leader in charge of the urban development project of the E and F District, and was transferred to the head of the project management team for the development project on April 1, 2019.

On June 4, 2019, the Plaintiff: (a) held a personnel committee; (b) determined the lectures to participants as grounds for disciplinary action; and (c) notified the intervenors on June 18, 2019, on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to comply with the direction for the performance of duties by the team leader of the president (hereinafter referred to as “reasons 2”); (c) neglected to comply with the direction for the implementation of the development project; (d) refusal to approve the draft of the development project (hereinafter referred to as “reasons 4”); (e) failure to attend the weekly meeting with the president (hereinafter referred to as “grounds 5”); (vi) the demand for avoidance of the development project of G and E districts (hereinafter referred to as “grounds 6”); and (d) notified the intervenors of the disposition, such as demotion.

(hereinafter “instant demotion”) The Intervenor appealed and filed a petition review with the Plaintiff on June 27, 2019, but the appeals review committee dismissed the Intervenor’s claim on July 24, 2019.

On August 13, 2019, an intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission by asserting that “the instant demotion, etc. is unreasonable.”

The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission did not recognize the grounds for disciplinary action against the Intervenor on October 7, 2019, and the grounds for disciplinary action are excessive. As such, the instant demotion cited the Intervenor’s request for remedy on the ground that it is unreasonable.

On November 18, 2019, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission. However, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the same ground as the above initial inquiry court.

(hereinafter referred to as “the ground for recognition”) of the instant case.