1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

On August 14, 1998, an intervenor in the position of the parties to the decision of reexamination was established on August 14, 1998 and engaged in the business of maintaining and managing facilities, and the plaintiff entered the intervenor on March 1, 2008 and served as security guards at the business office of B University.

(1) On June 28, 2012, the Plaintiff was notified by the Intervenor that the term of the labor contract expires, but the Plaintiff claimed that it was unfair dismissal, and the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission made an application for unfair dismissal to the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission. On September 21, 2012, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission decided that the notification of the expiration of the term was unfair dismissal and ordered the Intervenor to reinstate the Plaintiff. (2) On October 10, 2012, the Intervenor ordered on October 10, 2012 that the Intervenor “the Plaintiff’s former workplace is to be reinstated as security guards of Dongbu Fire Fightings (hereinafter “Dong Automatic Labor Relations Commission”) located in the Yongsan-gu Automatic, Yongsan-gu, Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter “Dong Automatic Labor Relations Commission”) and ordered the Intervenor to work at work on October 7, 2012.

(3) The Plaintiff asserted that the instant order of reinstatement was an unfair transfer, and filed an application for remedy for unfair transfer to the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission on December 14, 2012, but was dismissed on March 14, 2013. However, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for cancellation of the unfair transfer remedy adjudication with the Seoul Administrative Court on April 19, 2013. However, the said court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on December 26, 2013 on the ground that “the instant order of reinstatement was issued within the discretionary scope that the employer, who is a personnel authority, is able to exercise within the scope of his/her duties, and thus cannot be deemed an illegal transfer order.”

The Plaintiff’s disciplinary dismissal against the Plaintiff requires the reinstatement to the existing place of business at B University, which is the previous place of work, and the Plaintiff did not work at all since October 13, 2012, and the Intervenor did not comply with the order to transfer the place of business and reinstatement on May 2, 2013.