1. The National Labor Relations Commission’s dismissal on December 15, 2010 between the Plaintiff, the Defendant joining the Defendant, and the C, is unjust.

A. The Plaintiff sent a document in the title “in the case of the introduction of the performance-based new personnel system,” which includes the content of the said conversion to regular workers, to each department and obtained the consent of the Intervenor, including the Intervenor.

(A) Evidence No. 10, Evidence No. 11-2, and evidence No. 4 of the evidence No. 11). On the other hand, the Intervenor A, on August 2009, was placed as a TC business unit and received education for issuing a branch office, was placed as a branch office around October 2009, and was placed as the E branch office around January 201, 209, and the Intervenor B was placed as a prosecutor.

The main contents of recommendations for the introduction of the new personnel system

5. Status conversion and new employment;

(a) Workers who worked for a period of two years: Conversion into regular positions and termination of the contract through an appraisal before the termination of the contract;

(b) A full-time worker: A full-time conversion, maintenance of employment and termination of a contract through an assessment before the termination of the contract;

(c) As a matter of principle, the employer from January 2010 shall be a full-time employment, but in consideration of job characteristics, management environment, etc., a person employed as a full-time employee * concurrently with the employment of contract workers * after the application of a full-time employment period of six months, the determination of whether to be a full-time employment * The calculation of

6. Submission of written consents;

(b) Each department shall submit a written consent of attached form by August 28, 2009 to the General Affairs Department.

7. Other matters.

A. The details of the new personnel system can be changed when implementing the new personnel system, and (7) the Plaintiff conducted the secondary evaluation for contractual workers on January 2, 2010 to May 5, 2010, and the Plaintiff converted the workers who received at least 80 points in accordance with the results of the evaluation (eight of the workers who were granted the postponement of full-time conversion according to the first evaluation) to regular workers, and the workers who received less than 70 points in the employment contract were terminated due to the expiration of the contract period.

The Intervenor may receive the opinion of “maintenance of a contractual position” with 73 points and 79 points respectively from the second evaluation conducted on March 25, 2010 (see evidence 6-2 and evidence 7-2). The Intervenor shall enter into an employment contract between the Intervenor and the Intervenor.