1. The defendant's KRW 5,00,000 and its annual rate from April 14, 2020 to December 8, 2020 to the plaintiff, and the following.

The premise facts are the legal entity established on May 18, 201 and ordinarily using more than 100 workers at all times, with the purpose of the business of developing and supplying software for children's education, etc., and the plaintiff is a person who entered the defendant on December 30, 2015 and worked as the head of the defendant's "Ydong Center" located in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

On February 19, 2018, the Defendant issued the letter of personnel management (hereinafter “instant letter of personnel management”) to the Defendant’s “Masan Center Counseling Manager,” located in Gangnam-gu Seoul (hereinafter “Seoul”).

On February 21, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission for the instant order of personnel management. On April 18, 2018, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a judgment citing the application for remedy on the ground that “The instant order of personnel management falls under substantial demotion or lower-ranking transfer, and thereby, there is considerable disadvantage to the Plaintiff as a result. The business necessity of the instant order of personnel management is difficult to be proven, and it is difficult to deem that the consultation procedure required under the principle of good faith was undergone, thereby abusing the right of personnel management.”

On May 25, 2018, the defendant appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission, but the National Labor Relations Commission decided to dismiss the application for reexamination on August 1, 2018.

The defendant filed a lawsuit with the Seoul Administrative Court against the chairperson of the Central Labor Relations Commission seeking the revocation of the above review decision.

(2018Guhap78022). On April 4, 2019, the above court rendered a judgment dismissing the Defendant’s claim on the ground that the instant personnel order was unlawful and the retrial ruling was lawful, while it is difficult to deem that there was a need for business to issue the instant personnel order, and that the level of disadvantage to the Plaintiff is excessive, and that the Plaintiff did not undergo consultation required by the principle of good faith to the Plaintiff in the course of issuing the personnel order. The above judgment became final and conclusive as the period of appeal.

The plaintiff is receiving treatment from April 2018 due to depression, apprehensions, tensions, and two symptoms.