1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit are resulting from the assistance.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the decision of a retrial stating the purport of the claim (hereinafter “the decision of a retrial of this case”) are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is legitimate

A. On the grounds delineated below, the decision of the retrial of this case should be revoked in an unlawful manner.

A) From October 13, 2018 to April 14, 2018, the management commission commission commissioned 11 N et al. as G Games Tribunal of M&M. They received compensation in return for the commission’s performance of inquiry duties during the same period.

The management committee executed the above compensation for adjudication under the budget item of " personnel expenses", and the Korean Sport and Olympic Committee of Korea has previously treated the compensation for adjudication as " personnel expenses" or "amount of daily rent."

In light of these circumstances, the Tribunal is a full-time employee, and in this case, at least five full-time employees of the Intervenor during one month (from September 30 to October 29, 2018) prior to the removal of the position of this case are recognized to have the right to request remedy against the Plaintiff.

B) The management commission, while cancelling the instant position, issued the Plaintiff a document “the issuance of a personnel order (displacement of position)” rather than the “written explanation on the grounds for the removal of position” under the Intervenor’s Personnel Management Regulations. The instant position is procedurally unlawful.

In addition, the removal of the position of this case is unlawful since there are no grounds for the removal of the position prescribed in Article 98 (Removal of Position and Recommendation of Resignation) of the Participant Personnel Management Regulations and there is no need for business.

B. The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

(c)

The court's explanation on whether the plaintiff has the right to request remedy against the Labor Relations Commission is in accordance with Section 2-C of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

Part of the subsection shall be as follows: