1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Central Labor Relations Commission’s focus on October 14, 2009 between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

In the course of the decision on reexamination, the plaintiff company (the trade name was changed from the Geum River Development Industry Co., Ltd. to Hyundai L&S Co., Ltd., on March 24, 2006, and the new company Hyundai F&S, May 28, 2010) is a company that operates food materials supply business, computer system construction and operation business, etc. with approximately 190 workers employed at approximately 853-1 workers in Suwon-si, Suwon-dong, Suwon-dong, and the defendant joining the defendant (hereinafter referred to as the "the intervenor") who entered the plaintiff company on June 16, 198 and was in charge of inventory management for the production, management, and distribution of the fashion Team, which was divided from the plaintiff company on April 1, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the "formerization").

On June 3, 2009, the Intervenor asserted that the transfer of the instant case, which unilaterally changed the Intervenor’s affiliation, constituted an unfair transfer of rights, and applied for an unfair remedy to the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission (Seoul 2009, Seoul 1189). The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for remedy on July 30, 2009, stating that “the transfer of the instant case was made with the Intervenor’s prior and comprehensive consent, and is not unfair.”

Accordingly, the intervenor filed an application for review with the National Labor Relations Commission, and the National Labor Relations Commission revoked the initial trial court and granted the application for remedy on October 14, 2009 to the effect that “In the event that the affiliation of an employee is changed due to a corporate division, it is reasonable to obtain the consent of individual workers in terms of the protection of workers or to exercise the right to refuse for a considerable period of time. However, in this case, it is difficult to view that the personnel exchange without the consent of the employees among the affiliated companies was established as a practice, and therefore, the transfer of this case constitutes an unfair measure that deviates from the scope of personnel discretion.”

(Central 209, 731, hereinafter referred to as "the decision of this case"). [Ground for recognition] Nos. 1 and 2-1.