1. On January 28, 2016, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered an unfair transfer between the Plaintiff and the Defendant joining the Defendant, which was unfair in turn.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a company running an insurance business with 2,700 full-time workers. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) was employed by the Plaintiff on December 23, 2010, and served as an officer in exclusive charge of the head office at the Chungcheong Regional Headquarters as the head office, and was transferred from April 20, 2015 to the head office of the Seoul Headquarters (hereinafter “instant transfer order”).

B. On July 13, 2015, the Intervenor claimed that the instant transfer order constitutes an unfair transfer and applied for remedy to the Chungcheong Regional Labor Relations Commission by Appendix 2015 and Section 304. On September 9, 2015, the Chungcheongnamnam Regional Labor Relations Commission recognized the instant transfer order as an unfair transfer and decided that the Plaintiff recognized the transfer order as an unfair transfer and ordered the Plaintiff to return the Intervenor’s former transfer, on the ground that there is no need for the Plaintiff to transfer the Intervenor to Seoul on September 9, 2015, and there is no case where the Plaintiff transferred the Plaintiff to the former, and that there is a great disadvantage in the life of the Intervenor due to the instant transfer order.

C. On October 21, 2015, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the foregoing initial inquiry court, filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission as prescribed by Ministry of Labor No. 2015da1076, but the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision dismissing the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on January 28, 2016 on the same ground as the above initial inquiry court.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). / [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 14 (including additional numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

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

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is placed at the head of the Plaintiff’s Chungcheong Regional Headquarters only by the Intervenor, who is a driving engineer in exclusive charge of the head of the headquarters, but the Intervenor neglected or refused to perform his/her duties to leave and leave the headquarters, the most basic duties of the Intervenor, and at any time interfere with the schedule of duties of the head of the headquarters, etc. by leaving his/her waiting place, and thereby causing interferences to the duty of the head of the headquarters.