1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Following the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance, the fact that the Defendant concluded an entrusted management contract with C on December 16, 2014, and concluded a special agreement with the management staff at the time that they were employed not to succeed to C is acknowledged as seen earlier.

However, in full view of the following facts revealed by the above quoted evidence and the evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 6 and the testimony and the whole purport of the pleading by the first instance court witness D, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant has made efforts to avoid dismissal by requesting C to employ the plaintiff despite the above special agreement.

① From a special audit conducted around March 10, 2014 by the Seo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City Seo-gu, as a result of the instant apartment as a result of the occurrence of problems, such as the payment of expenses and cleaning service costs, failure to review construction documents, inappropriate selection of an elevator maintenance and repair company, failure to examine electricity charges contract methods, etc., and the scheduled notification of measures, such as imposition of fines, improvement order, and request for investigation, was received. Accordingly, the Defendant was in conflict with the Plaintiff, which is the head of the management office.

② On October 30, 2014, G agreed that “the succession of employment is 100%” between the labor representative H and the labor representative on the qualification of the Defendant’s representative. By the end of the sixth period (former representative group, December 31, 2014), the issue of wages is specified in the tender, and that the management company’s policies shall follow the management company’s policies from the seventh period after the end of the sixth period.”

③ On December 16, 2014, the Defendant concluded an entrustment contract with C on the management of apartment buildings of this case, and requested D, the representative director of C, to allow D, the Plaintiff, to work on other apartment buildings.

④ Accordingly, D had an interview with the Plaintiff on the date of the above contract, and was unable to continue to work for the instant apartment due to conflict with the Defendant, and was able to work for another apartment, and the Plaintiff also wanted to do so.

First of all, it was authorized to work in E Apartment.