A. As to the collective agreement between the Plaintiff and two Koreas, the Plaintiff sought revocation of the corrective order issued by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on July 6, 201, and the judgment of the court of first instance accepted the Plaintiff’s claim regarding Article 9, 10, 14 (the part excluding the treatment of those appointed as a full-time officer) of the attached Table among the corrective order, and Articles 16(1) and 81(2) of the attached Table, and dismissed the remainder of the Plaintiff’s claim.

B. However, the judgment of the party prior to the remanding of the case at the trial court prior to the remanding of the case where both parties’ appeal was brought, shall accept the Plaintiff’s claim as to the part concerning “the treatment of the person who takes full office is equivalent to the treatment of the full-time officer of the association,” and changed the judgment of the first instance to dismiss the remainder of the Plaintiff’s claim. The Supreme Court in the final appeal that is proceeding with both parties’ appeal, accepted the Defendant’s appeal as to the part against the Defendant as to Article 10 of the items in the attached Table No. 10 among the above corrective orders, and reversed the judgment prior to the remand of the case, and remanded to this court. The Plaintiff’s appeal and the remainder of the Defendant’s appeal are dismissed

C. Therefore, the remainder of the Plaintiff’s claim before the first instance court and the second instance court, excluding the above reversed and remanded portions, has been separately determined by the above Supreme Court’s judgment on the reversal and remanded parts, and the subject of the trial at the first instance court is limited to the above reversed and remanded parts, i.e., the part concerning Article 10 of the attached Table among the above corrective orders.

2. Details of the corrective order;

A. On December 10, 2010, the Plaintiff concluded a collective agreement, including Article 10 of the entry in the list of the subjects of the attached Table, with the two prime contractors.

B. On July 6, 201, the Defendant is Article 10 of the collective agreement between the Plaintiff and two Koreas (hereinafter “instant provision”).