1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

An intervenor in the process of the retrial decision is a corporation that operates a tourist hotel or amusement place (side park, theme park, etc.) by making use of 1,400 full-time workers, and the plaintiff is a person who is employed in the intervenor on July 1, 1987.

On June 16, 2007, the intervenor cancelled the assignment of the plaintiff who served as B, and issued a warning to the plaintiff on July 9, 201 on the grounds that the plaintiff's assignment constitutes the lower 15% of personnel management and lower 15% for consecutive years of July 2, 201, and on the ground that the assignment of the plaintiff constitutes the lower 15% of personnel management and lower 15% for consecutive years of August 3, 2012, and on October 22, 2012, the intervenor transferred the plaintiff to the organization marketing team Gwangju Office C.

On September 16, 2013, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s personnel status and result constituted lower 15% for four consecutive years, the Intervenor was subject to disciplinary action against the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 68 subparag. 8 of the Rules of Employment (a person who caused work site due to bad work attitude and neglect of duties).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant probation disposition”). C.

On December 13, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the Intervenor’s cancellation of the assignment to another position as of June 16, 2007, the Intervenor’s warning disposition as of July 9, 201, the good faith disposition as of August 3, 2012, the personnel assignment order as of October 22, 201, and the instant probation disposition as of October 22, 201, were unfair and applied for remedy.

However, on February 10, 2014, Jeonnam Labor Relations Commission dismissed a request for remedy against each disposition other than the instant new disposition on the ground that the exclusion period is excessive, and dismissed on the ground that the request for remedy against the instant new disposition was all recognized by the grounds for disciplinary action and that the disciplinary action is appropriate.

On March 4, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “Central Labor Relations Commission”), but, on May 14, 2014, the Central Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for reexamination.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant decision on reexamination”). [Grounds for recognition] The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant decision on reexamination, as to the entries of evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings.