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.

Details of the Review Decision

A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “the Intervenor”) is a legal entity established on February 15, 1983 and ordinarily employs approximately 110 workers and operates educational institutions, such as C University (hereinafter “instant University”).

B. On January 9, 2017, the Plaintiff joined the instant university and performed its duties as the planning director at the E Campus in D’s located, and was subject to a disposition of G-based waiting order issued by the Intervenor on July 25, 2017.

C. On October 23, 2017, the Intervenor notified the change of the Plaintiff’s waiting place to Fcambus located in the Scambus.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff appeared to work from October 25, 2017 to F Campus.

On December 26, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission by asserting that the measure of the said standby is unfair.

On December 29, 2017, the Intervenor revoked the standby for the Plaintiff and issued the Plaintiff as the assets management team of the University of this case.

(2) On January 9, 2018, the Intervenor notified the Plaintiff of the disciplinary action of suspension for three months on the ground of the following reasons: (a) the Intervenor: (b) the Plaintiff’s improper personnel intervention; (c) the improper recruitment of teachers; (d) the refusal to comply with the request for investigation and questioning by the Investigation Committee; (v) the failure to perform duties related to the Convention; and (vi) the failure to perform duties related to the Convention; and (v) the failure to perform duties due to the change in the name of the representative of the Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation.

(hereinafter “instant suspension disposition”) e.

The Plaintiff asserted that the transfer and suspension disposition of this case are improper and changed the purport of the application for the remedy.

On April 20, 2018, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission rejected an application for remedy against a standby order. The application for remedy against the transfer and suspension of the occupation of the instant case is difficult to deem that the transfer of the instant disposition is necessary for business, and the Plaintiff did not obtain the Plaintiff’s consent and did not undergo the minimum procedures required under the good faith principle.

(e).