1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of litigation, including the part arising from the defendant's participation, are all assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The intervenor is a corporation that employs 580 full-time workers and engages in the business of maintaining and managing facilities. The plaintiff is a person who joined the intervenor company on March 1, 2008 and served as security guards at the Hanyang University's place of business.

B. On June 28, 2012, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor on July 31, 2012 that the term of the labor contract expires between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor (hereinafter “instant notification of the expiration”). The Intervenor asserted that the instant notification of the expiration is unfair and filed an application for unfair dismissal remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission determined that the instant notification of the expiration was unfair and that the said notification was unfair, and ordered the Intervenor to reinstate the Plaintiff.

C. On October 10, 2012, the Intervenor ordered the Plaintiff to be reinstated as security guards of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B (hereinafter “B business office”) from October 13, 2012 to the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “instant reinstatement order”). D.

On October 19, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant order of reinstatement was unfair transfer, and filed an application for unfair transfer remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission. On December 14, 2012, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission rejected the Plaintiff’s application on the ground that the instant order of reinstatement was a legitimate personnel order.

On December 31, 2012, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the initial inquiry court, filed an application for reexamination of unfair transfer relief with the National Labor Relations Commission, and the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on March 14, 2013.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision by reexamination”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, each entry in Gap evidence No. 1 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

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

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff 1 intervenor ordered the plaintiff to be reinstated, and the plaintiff had already been ordered to work at the B business place, other than the business place of the Hanyang University, which was employed by the plaintiff. Thus, the order of reinstatement of this case is a kind of order of transfer.