2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

A. The Intervenor Company is incorporated on June 14, 1999 and has been incorporated for the same year.

7. A company which takes over the racing business headquarters from C Co., Ltd., and ordinarily employs 880 full-time workers, manufactures and supplies motor vehicle parts, such as a power generator, a starting scambr, etc., to complete vehicles, and operates business such as design, manufacture, and sale of motor vehicle industrial parts.

On February 9, 1996, the Plaintiff is a member of the Korean Metal Trade Union affiliated with the Korean Metal Trade Union (hereinafter referred to as the “MMMM”) racing branch (hereinafter referred to as the “D branch”) affiliated with the Intervenor company, and served as the member of the Korean Metal Trade Union (hereinafter referred to as the “D branch”).

B. On November 26, 2012, the Intervenor Company: (a) took a disciplinary measure against the Intervenor Company for one month of suspension from office pursuant to Article 84 of the Rules of Employment on the ground that the Plaintiff, from March 26, 2012 to July 2012, putting the Intervenor Company’s passenger factory North Korea and his/her commercial factory en banc; and (b) distributed printed materials from the Intervenor Company’s commercial factory access roads to the Intervenor Company on October 30, 2012, thereby impairing the Intervenor Company’s reputation and credit.

(hereinafter “instant disposition of suspension from office”) C.

On January 29, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant suspension disposition constituted an unfair disciplinary action and unfair labor practice and filed an application for remedy with the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission. On the other hand, the Plaintiff determined that the instant suspension disposition constituted an unfair disciplinary action on the ground that “the procedural defect was caused by the disciplinary committee composed only of the members of the disciplinary committee composed of the members of the workers recommended by the E Trade Union, which was recommended by the Plaintiff, other than the members of the D branch that was affiliated with the Plaintiff.” On the other hand, the Plaintiff determined that the instant suspension disposition does not constitute unfair labor practice and accepted only the portion of the unfair

On February 15, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission under 2013No25, but the National Labor Relations Commission also on April 25, 2013.