1. The plaintiff (the quasi-Appellant)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Quasi-Review Plaintiff).

1. The reasons why this Court shall state this part of the basic facts are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance, except for the modification of “A No. 1 (including the number of each unit; hereinafter the same shall apply)” to “A No. 1 (including the serial number)” at the 9th bottom of the judgment of the first instance, on the ground that this part of this Court is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance, and therefore, it shall be cited as it is in accordance

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) In the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission case No. 2009, Seoul 2101, where the Plaintiff’s motion was dismissed, the Defendant submitted a forged document (Evidence No. 12) and a statement of reason for non-performance of duties (Evidence No. 13) stating the retroactive date on which the Plaintiff’s motion was false. The written ruling in Seoul 2009, Annex 2101 was also submitted in Seoul 201, Annex 1379, Annex 188, Seoul 2011, Annex 201, Annex 6 and 7 of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. However, there are grounds for quasi-deliberation falling under Article 451(2) of the Civil Procedure Act. 2) The Defendant made a false statement that he will faithfully perform the duty of consultation under Article 451(1)6 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Act. Inasmuch as the above protocol was prepared based on this, there exists a ground for re

3) The Defendant, in violation of Article 16-3(2) of the instant protocol of conciliation, returned the Plaintiff, who was not satisfying without any consultation with the Plaintiff, to the work site. The instant protocol of protocol of conciliation has grounds for re-examination falling under Article 451(1)9 and 10 of the Civil Procedure Act. (b) Determination 1) The Labor Relations Commission, which made a decision on the assertion of quasi-examination under Article 451(1)6 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, has the effect of judicial compromise pursuant to Article 16-3(3) and (4) of the Labor Relations Commission Act. Such compromise is intended to terminate the dispute through mutual concession between the parties.