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 company established in around 2004 and engaged in the manufacturing business of air conditioning machinery for vehicles by using approximately 600 workers on a regular basis.

An intervenor was employed by the plaintiff on April 8, 1986 and has been employed until now.

B. On November 7, 2014, the Intervenor suffered injury that requires approximately two weeks of medical treatment to C in the course of disputing with other workers C by the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “instant injury”). C.

On January 26, 2015, the Plaintiff decided to hold a disciplinary committee against the Intervenor on February 10, 2015, with three items (hereinafter referred to as “reasons A,” “grounds B,” “the Plaintiff’s head leader C’s head leader’s bomb and 2nd diagnosis of flaps, ② the Plaintiff refused to leave the facility by doping the time of leaving the facility even during the working hours, and returned the vehicle by suffering materials (the non-performance of duties instructions and the act of leaving the facility), ③ the Plaintiff carried out a knife and bath that are not related to his/her duties during the working hours (the act of disturbance of duties).”

Accordingly, around January 27, 2015, the Plaintiff sent a letter to the intervenors to attend the Disciplinary Committee held on February 10, 2015. On February 3, 2015, the Plaintiff sent a request to attend the NA branch A branch of the Korean Metal Trade Union (hereinafter “A Trade Union”) which is a trade union located in the Plaintiff’s workplace. The Plaintiff also sent a request to request the attendance of the said Disciplinary Committee.

On February 2, 2015, Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment notified the Plaintiff that the disciplinary action procedure under Article 27(2) of the collective agreement is clearly violated. Thus, Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment notified the Plaintiff that he/she cannot participate in the disciplinary action.

E. On February 3, 2015, the Plaintiff, as scheduled, held a disciplinary committee for the Intervenor, but the Intervenor and the Trade Union member participated in the said disciplinary committee.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff postponed or continued the disciplinary committee on the 5th, 11th, 13th, 25th and March 2, 2015, and finally on March 2015.