1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a medical institution established pursuant to the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Local Medical Centers, and has six hospitals including C Hospital, D Hospital, E Hospital, F Hospital, G Hospital, and H Hospital under its jurisdiction, and is a public service corporation that runs health and medical business by using 1,134 full-time workers.

In January 1, 1987, the intervenor joined the plaintiff corporation and served as the head of the planning and coordination office on February 1, 2012.

B. On March 26, 2014, the Plaintiff issued a personnel order to transfer the Intervenor from its headquarters to a F Hospital pursuant to Article 35 of the Personnel Management Regulations of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Personnel Regulations”), but did not assign a position to the F Hospital.

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

On May 1, 2014, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission on the ground that the instant personnel order was unfair, and the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission received the application for remedy from the Intervenor on June 30, 2014 on the ground that “the Plaintiff, on March 26, 2014, issued an order of removal from position and transfer to the Intervenor on the same date, he/she violated the procedural provisions, and among which, he/she did not have any reason for removal from position, he/she violated the procedural provisions, and that the order of removal from position was unlawful and transferred as it did not have any reason for removal from position, while the Intervenor’s living disadvantage was high, and thus, abused and abused discretion.”

On July 8, 2014, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the above initial inquiry tribunal and applied for reexamination to the National Labor Relations Commission. On September 17, 2014, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s above request for reexamination on the same ground as the above initial inquiry tribunal.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). / [Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 8, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

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

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1 did not remove the intervenor from his position only when the plaintiff issued a transfer order to the intervenor.

Even if the plaintiff was dismissed from position, the plaintiff was dismissed.