1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit include the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a non-profit incorporated association that regularly provides welfare services for disabled persons (hereinafter “Plaintiffs” or “Plaintiffs Corporation”) by being entrusted with welfare facilities for disabled persons by the State or local governments (24 central associations and 828 affiliated facilities), and the Intervenor B served as the head of the C Welfare Service of the Plaintiff Corporation (hereinafter “instant Welfare Service”).

B. On August 1, 2013, the Plaintiff issued an order for personnel exchange (hereinafter “instant order for personnel exchange”) to change the Intervenor’s position B to the secretariat at the instant welfare center (hereinafter “instant workplace”) (hereinafter “instant order”). On August 1, 2013, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor B of the fact that the Intervenor would be held on November 8, 2013 through the official document stating “an explanation following the holding of personnel committee” to the Intervenor B on October 30, 2013.

C. In the presence of the Intervenor B, the Plaintiff held the seventh Personnel Committee and decided to dismiss the Intervenor on the ground of absence from office for a long time under Articles 2, 29 (Disciplinary Action), and 30 (Types of Disciplinary Action) of the Personnel Regulations, and notified the Intervenor B of the result thereof on the 12th of the same month.

(hereinafter “instant dismissal”) D.

On August 27, 2013, the Intervenor B asserted that the instant personnel exchange order is unfair, and filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter “Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission”), and on October 24, 2013, the Seoul Central Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for remedy on the ground that the instant personnel exchange order was larger than the disadvantages of daily life.

(2) On November 22, 2013, the Intervenor B appealed against the above first instance trial tribunal and filed an application for review with the National Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter “China”).