1. On November 25, 2015, the National Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter “National Labor Relations Commission”) between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Intervenor (hereinafter “Defendant’s Intervenor”).

The plaintiff is a subsidiary of C, which was converted into an independent corporation on March 2, 2012 after it was established as a business entity directly operated by C in 1993, and is engaged in the business of maintaining and managing D facilities with approximately 110 full-time workers. The defendant joining the defendant (hereinafter referred to as "the intervenor") is a person who joined the plaintiff as a support worker on December 1, 2003.

On March 5, 2015, the Plaintiff issued the Intervenor, who had been in charge of accounting affairs at the Egegeice Center, as part of April 1, 2015, to receive the Intervenor’s new road management team as part of the receipt of the general facility management team’s new road business office.

(hereinafter “instant former Act”). On June 8, 2015, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission on the ground that the instant transfer was unfair, and the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission received the Intervenor’s application on July 31, 2015 on the ground that “the need for the occupation of the instant case is not recognized, the resulting disadvantage is not significant, and the agreement with the Intervenor was not followed.”

On September 2, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on November 25, 2015 on the same ground as the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the court below's determination on the retrial of this case is justifiable. The court below's determination on the retrial of this case was examined as follows: (a) there was no dispute; (b) Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2; and (c) the purport of the entire pleadings to the purport of the ruling on the retrial of this case is legitimate; and (c) the Plaintiff's ruling on the retrial of this case is deemed to be a de facto administrative employee between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor; and (d) the transfer of this case was examined as to the need for the transfer of this case's occupation, living disadvantage, compliance with consultation procedures, etc. on the premise that "the transfer of this case was de facto changed to the position of the Intervenor to the office of clerical employee." However, the transfer of this case