1. On August 25, 2016, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a central order between the Plaintiff, the incorporated Korea Freedom Federation, and the branch offices of the Korea Freedom Federation.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. On June 30, 2010, the Plaintiff is a person who was enrolled in the Korea Freedom Federation, an incorporated association (hereinafter “instant corporation”) and served as the Secretary-General in B branch (hereinafter “instant branch”).

B. On December 14, 2015, the president of the instant branch made a request for a disciplinary decision against the Plaintiff on the grounds that “the Plaintiff caused damage to the general partner’s property,” and “the Plaintiff’s violation of orders under the General Federation Regulations, breach of duties/performance of duties, and disturbance of deceptive order.”

C. On March 14, 2016, the Plaintiff received an order of personnel management under the name of the president of the instant branch, stating that “the Plaintiff shall be released from his position from his position as of March 14, 2016 through June 13, 2016, according to the resolution of the personnel committee of the instant branch.”

(hereinafter “instant personnel order”) D.

On March 15, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) indicated the instant chapter as the respondent; (b) removed the Plaintiff from position; and (c) dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on the ground that “The standing to apply for remedy to the Plaintiff is not the instant branch, but the instant corporation.”

E. On June 8, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “Central Labor Relations Commission”), and the Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for reexamination on the ground that “this case’s branch is not a party-qualified, and even if there is no party-qualified, the instant personnel order is justifiable.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision by reexamination”). / [Grounds for recognition] A; Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3; Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply); the purport of the entire pleadings.

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

A. The plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's assertion is "(1) The branch of this case is eligible as a party to the request for remedy.

(2) The instant branch office is not qualified as a party.

Even if the plaintiff applies for remedy, the plaintiff shall be the chapter of this case.