2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is a stock company established around March 17, 199 and employs approximately 150 full-time workers and runs gold-type manufacturing business.

On June 11, 2012, an intervenor entered into an employment contract with the Plaintiff and worked as a regular worker at the Plaintiff’s assembly team (hereinafter “prefabricated team”) around that time.

B. As temporary agency workers, who are not regular workers of the assembly team, refuse to renew a contract after the expiration of the term of the labor contract with the temporary work agency, the temporary agency workers continues to hold an assembly and demonstration on November 6, 2014 by asserting the unpaid payment of temporary closure allowances, non-human treatment of the managers in the workplace, etc. from the date of the Plaintiff’s temporary domicile, and continuing to hold a meeting and demonstration by looking at the front place where the manager of the

C. On November 20, 2014, the Plaintiff, on which the said assembly and demonstration continued, ordered an overseas business trip as a Vietnam corporation from November 24, 2014 to December 24, 2014, for the purpose of “the advantage of the headquarters related to material management at Vietnam’s place of business, ascertaining the status of the headquarters related to material management at Vietnam, managing the process, and sharing technology” to the intervenors.

(hereinafter “instant order of business trip”). D.

On November 21, 2014, around 09:53 and around 11:48 on the following day, the Intervenor sent to the Plaintiff e-mail requesting changes to the above order of the business trip due to reasons, such as sending back the e-mail to the Plaintiff.

E. On November 26, 2014, the Plaintiff dismissed the Intervenor following disciplinary procedures, such as holding a disciplinary committee.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant dismissal.” The grounds for the disciplinary action taken by the Plaintiff while dismissing the instant dismissal are as follows: ① the Intervenor violated Article 69 subparag. 10 of the Rules of Employment by failing to manage human resources in relation to the assembly demonstration that occurred within the Plaintiff as a manager of the assembly team (hereinafter “grounds for disciplinary action”) and ② the Plaintiff’s refusal of the Plaintiff’s urgent and lawful business trip order on several occasions on the ground of personal circumstances, thereby violating Article 69 subparag. 9 of the Rules of Employment.