1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the parts arising from the participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) employs approximately 2,30 full-time workers and employs approximately 2,30 full-time workers and has seven places of business, such as D, E, F, G, H, I, and J.

K Trade Union (hereinafter “instant trade union”) is a five-generation industrial union established on July 24, 2001 by the L Corporation separately for the restructuring of the electric utility industry on April 2, 2001, with five employees belonging to the five power generation companies (participating and M, N,O,O, P, et al.) established on July 24, 2001, with five headquarterss for each power generation company, and a branch office for each business affiliated with each power generation company.

The Plaintiff is a member of the instant trade union, who was employed by the Intervenor on October 8, 1990 and served in the J as the fourth class staff of the participant from May 9, 2014.

B. On January 7, 2019, the Plaintiff submitted the wishes for personnel management to the Intervenor on January 18, 2019, based on the first priority “E”, the second priority “auditor”, and the third priority “ Q Technology Research Institute.”

On January 18, 2019, the Intervenor issued a personnel order (hereinafter “instant personnel order”) and the Plaintiff was not included in the subject of the instant personnel order.

(c)

On April 17, 2019, the Plaintiff, the instant trade union, etc. asserted to the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission that “in the issuance of the instant personnel affairs, the Intervenor except the Plaintiff et al. without justifiable grounds constitutes unfair labor practices for disadvantageous treatment and control intervention,” and filed an application for remedy for unfair labor practices.

On June 17, 2019, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the above application for remedy on the ground that “the Intervenor cannot be deemed an unfair labor act of disadvantageous treatment and control intervention based on his intent merely on the ground that the Intervenor excluded the Plaintiff, etc. from the issuance of the instant personnel affairs.”

(d)

The Plaintiff and the instant trade union, etc. on July 22, 2019.