1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal, including the part arising from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, is the same as the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, with the exception that the second-Ra (12-10-2, 7-10) among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as follows.

Therefore, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Attachment] D]

Judgment

(A) As a matter of principle, the transfer of a worker is subject to the authority of the employer, who is a personnel authority, and the employer has a considerable discretion within the scope necessary for business.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed null and void unless there are special circumstances, such as violation of Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act or violation of the abuse of rights to prevent a worker from changing his/her position without justifiable grounds.

Whether a transfer disposition falls within the scope of legitimate personnel rights shall be determined by comparing and comparing the business needs of the relevant transfer disposition, etc. and disadvantages to the worker’s livelihood due to the change of occupation, and comprehensively taking into account whether the transfer disposition, such as consultation with the labor union to which the worker belongs, was followed by the procedures required under the good faith principle in the course of such transfer disposition.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du20157, Apr. 23, 2009). Meanwhile, an employer’s occupational necessity required in the disposition of the transfer refers to the rationality of the choice of the number of workers, which requires the employer to change the number of employees and is appropriate to include any employee in the change.

(B) In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the facts recognized and the evidence admitted earlier, while the case of the instant transfer of occupation is difficult to deem that the need for the pertinent transfer of occupation is high, on the other hand, the Intervenor’s living disadvantage is ordinarily to be borne by the employee.