1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. All plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit shall be the supplementary participation.

1. Circumstances for the decision on retrial;

A. On February 29, 2012, the head of the Hospital of the Childbirth (hereinafter referred to as the “instant hospital”) to which Plaintiff A was an intervenor for the transition of placement (hereinafter referred to as “instant hospital”) issued a personnel order with which Plaintiff A, working in the Central Supply Center of the Nursing Department, who was in charge of QI affairs, on March 5, 2012 at the Medical Treatment Support Book, to be in charge of QI (I) management.

(hereinafter “instant placement conversion”). (b)

The plaintiffs of the first instance and the second instance judgment filed an application for remedy with the Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission because the instant conversion constitutes unfair placement and unfair labor practices.

On July 17, 2012, the Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the plaintiffs' remaining application for remedy on the ground that the conversion of the placement of this case was an unfair conversion, and that it does not constitute an unfair labor practice.

The plaintiffs and intervenors applied for review to the National Labor Relations Commission.

On November 16, 2012, the National Labor Relations Commission revoked the initial inquiry court on the ground that the conversion of this case was an exercise of legitimate personnel authority and there is no evidence to prove that the employer had an intent to engage in unfair labor practices, and made a decision to dismiss all applications for remedy from the first instance trial (the part on unfair placement) and reexamination applications (the part on unfair labor practices) by the plaintiffs.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). 【No dispute exists on the ground of recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings

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

A. The plaintiff A’s career and status as the plaintiff A, who had been employed in the instant hospital from September 14, 1990, is a class-5 worker of nursing service.

From August 1, 2003, QI was in charge of QI's duties in the medical support department, and was assigned to the central supply office of the nursing department on July 12, 2010.

On the other hand, the plaintiff from January 1, 2007.