2. The costs of the lawsuit, including those resulting from the participation, shall be all included.

A. The intervenor is a corporation that is established on December 18, 1990 and ordinarily employs 550 workers and runs the manufacturing business of the actual container wafers, which is a semiconductor material.

Plaintiff

A is an employee who was employed by the Intervenor on April 16, 1992, and the Plaintiff B Trade Union (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff Trade Union”) is a company-level trade union established on December 4, 2012 as the Plaintiff’s representative, and the members are Plaintiff A and D2.

B. On January 28, 2013, the Intervenor held a personnel committee and resolved on the disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on the grounds that “(i) a violation of Article 4.7.1, 18, and 24 of the Rules of Employment due to monetary transactions with a company operating a cafeteria (E) and Article 29(1)1, 18, and 24 of the collective agreement, and (ii) a violation of the company’s custody data (such as one’s commuting records, the sales amount of the company’s non-property and the amount of money received from an insurance company, the ledger of usage of various books, and wage-related data, etc.), and Article 29(1)1, 19, and 24 of the Rules of Employment due to unauthorized outflow and loss of the company’s materials (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”), and Article 4.7.4 subparag. 1, 19, and 24 of the collective agreement and Article 29(1)1, 19, and 24 of the Rules of Employment.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant dismissal”). C.

On April 30, 2013, the Plaintiffs asserted that the instant dismissal was an unfair dismissal and unfair labor practice, and filed an application for remedy with the Chungcheong Regional Labor Relations Commission. On June 20, 2013, the Chungcheong Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed all the Plaintiffs’ applications for remedy on the ground that the instant dismissal was justifiable and difficult to be deemed unfair labor practice.

The plaintiffs appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for reexamination on October 11, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the decision on the review of this case was unlawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) is unlawful in disciplinary proceedings (A) In order to punish a union member under the collective agreement of this case, the trade union is established in advance.