1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

1. The contents asserted by the Plaintiffs in the first instance court are not significantly different from the contents claimed by the parties in the first instance court, and even if the said claims are re-examineed with the evidence submitted by the parties in the first instance court and this court, the instant transfer order, which transfers the Plaintiff A from the marketing team publicity frequency to the annual team operation frequency, is deemed within the scope of the Intervenor’s legitimate personnel rights. In this regard, the legitimacy of the dismissal of the Plaintiff A against the Plaintiff who refused to work for the annual team operation frequency is recognized, and the instant dismissal does not constitute unfair labor practices related to the Plaintiff’s union.

Therefore, the first instance judgment that the Defendant’s decision on review of this case is lawful is justifiable.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of the court on this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case being cited by the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this Court shall accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420

[Supplementary part] The portion written in the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: “ March 15, 2015.” The portion written in the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: “ March 15, 2013.”

On April 2, 2012, the date of the issuance of No. 10 attached Form 23 of the first instance judgment, “No. 16, 2012” shall be read as “No. 2, 2012.”

On the 23th of the first instance judgment, the date of the issuance of No. 11 attached hereto, “ May 25, 2012” shall be deemed as “ April 17, 2012.”

On the face of the judgment of the first instance, the date of the issuance of No. 12 attached Form No. 23 shall be “ March 15, 2013” as “ June 1, 2012.”

On March 15, 2013, the date of the issuance of No. 15 of the first instance judgment No. 23 shall be “No. 11, 2014” as “ March 15, 2013.”

On the face of the judgment of the first instance, the date of the issuance of No. 17 of the attached Table No. 23 shall be “No. 15, 2014” as “No. 11, 2014.”

On the face of the judgment of the first instance, the date of the issuance of No. 29 attached Table 24 shall be “ May 29, 2015” as “ June 1, 2015.”

2. Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to this, since the plaintiffs' claim of this case is without merit.