1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. On November 15, 1986, the intervenor joined the plaintiff and served as Adoman.

B. On October 27, 2015, the Plaintiff transferred the Intervenor, who was a member of the Organization and Production Headquarters of the Organization and Production Headquarters, to the Incheon Organization of the Organization and Organization Incheon.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant transfer order”). C.

On November 20, 2015, and January 15, 2016, the Intervenor and the Intervenor alleged that the instant transfer order constitutes unfair transfer and unfair labor practices, respectively. On February 2, 2016, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a request for remedy to the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, respectively. On February 2, 2016, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission issued an order for remedy by deeming the transfer order as an unfair transfer. However, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission rejected the request for remedy by deeming that it does not constitute unfair labor practices.

On February 26, 2016, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on February 26, 2016, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on May 11, 2016, on the following grounds: (a) it is difficult to deem that the instant transfer order was made according to the need for business operations; (b) it is reasonable for the Intervenor’s living disadvantage in accordance with the instant transfer order; and (c) the Plaintiff did not undergo consultation to the extent required under the good faith

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). 【No dispute exists, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings.”

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

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The instant transfer order is due to the occupational necessity for assigning those experienced with external personal guidance to a competitor, thereby attaining the Plaintiff’s personnel management principles and practices. ② The instant transfer order did not have any significant disadvantage to the intervenors due to the instant transfer order. ③ The Plaintiff’s transfer order was issued in advance at the time of the Plaintiff’s personnel regulations.