2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

A. The Plaintiff is a juristic person established on June 28, 2006 and engaged in logistics consignment business, food manufacturing and sales business, etc. using approximately 40 full-time workers in the Chungcheongnam-gun and Jeonnam-gun.

Defendant Intervenor B (hereinafter “ Intervenor B”) was employed by the Plaintiff on January 17, 2017 and served as “the head of the food drink team,” and the Defendant Intervenor C (hereinafter “ Intervenor C”) was employed by the Plaintiff on January 1, 2014 and served as “the manager in charge of the restaurant.”

The intervenors are members of the D.D. (hereinafter “instant trade union”).

Intervenor B

1. Suspension of the duties as the team leader with respect to the failure to inspect the E order (temporary movement) (hereinafter referred to as “Disciplinary Reason No. 1 for the Intervenor B”);

(a) Failure to comply with business instructions (or to reduce the ratio of general purchases (FF unions));

(b) Money loss (52 million won) caused by non-performance of business instructions;

(c) Occurrence of a loss due to failure to inspect business affairs related to occupancy mobile policies;

2. The lack of team leader’s ability (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 2 for Intervenor B”) - The Intervenor C who does not inspect the purchase and sale of the premises cafeteria (the approval process without confirmation of the F Association’s detailed statement of transactions)

1. The case pertaining to the E order (temporary movement) (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 1 for Intervenor C”);

(a) Failure to comply with business instructions (or to reduce the ratio of general purchases (FF unions));

(b) Monetary damage caused by nonperformance of business instructions;

(c) Detorting the purport of the policy on occupancy and removal, and spreading false facts;

2. A lack of ability as a manager (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 2 against the Intervenor C”);

(a) Destruction or loss of a list of trading partners;

(b) Failure to submit meeting data related to inter-city mobile policies;

(c) lack of intent to continue to conduct affairs in the course of an interview with the G team leader at the time of the interview on May 15, 2017 (no intent exists to continue to conduct affairs in the course of an interview with the G team leader);

B. On December 7, 2017, the Plaintiff holds a personnel committee and for the following reasons, Article 21 of the Rules of Employment of the Plaintiff released from office against the Intervenor.