1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit is resulting from the supplementary participation.

The reasons why the court stated this part of the decision for reexamination are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part of the reasons are cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant decision on review is deemed to be a de facto employee between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor. The transfer of this case was examined as to the requirements for the occupational necessity, living disadvantage, compliance with the procedure of consultation, etc. of the previous occupation of the Intervenor on the premise that the Intervenor’s assignment to the position of the Intervenor was de facto changed to the position of the position of the Intervenor. However, the transfer of this case was ordered as the duties of receiving the new path office, which is the supporting position. As such, the Plaintiff granted the occupational group of the Intervenor’s “support position” and the refusal of the Intervenor’s demand for change of the occupational group is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the transfer of this case, and the Plaintiff’s refusal of the Intervenor’s demand for change of the occupational group cannot be deemed to have formed a fiduciary relationship between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor as a de facto employee.

The transfer of the instant case is due to the need for occupational activities, such as the demand for placement of human resources according to the occupational group, the organization of positions for the establishment of a new place of business and the improvement of profits, and the adjustment of duty circulation practices, etc., and the intervenor cannot be deemed to have suffered any disadvantage in daily life beyond the level of ordinary attention in commuting to and from work, performance of duties, etc., and the intervenor delivered his opinion on the change of assignment through dialogue, etc. with the director of the E Fitrate Center around January 2015, 2015, the transfer of

Therefore, the decision on review of this case, which was otherwise decided, is unlawful.

It is as shown in the attached Form of the relevant regulations.

In fact, the recognition intervenor is appointed to the General Department of the Office of Culture C No. C on February 26, 1996.