A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) is a company that employs approximately 1,460 full-time workers and engages in the business of manufacturing, processing and painting wheelchairs, and the Plaintiff, A, B, and C is a member of the Plaintiff National Metal Trade Union (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff Trade Union”) affiliated with the Plaintiff National Metal Trade Union (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff Trade Union”) which is a nationwide-level industrial trade union, as an employee working in the first part of the Intervenor’s production.

B. On April 22, 2014, the Intervenor filed the instant lawsuit with the Plaintiffs on April 22, 2014, including three months of suspension from office against Plaintiff A, one month of suspension from office against Plaintiff B and C, and E, and then withdrawn the lawsuit thereafter.

(hereinafter collectively referred to as "Plaintiff A, etc.") was subject to each disciplinary measure against dismissal.

(hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant disciplinary action”). Not later than 13 days from absence without permission (10 days in case of the Plaintiff C) (hereinafter referred to as “the grounds for disciplinary action”) (hereinafter referred to as “the grounds for disciplinary action 2”) a violation of the Regulations on Service (10 days in case of the Plaintiff C”) (hereinafter referred to as “the grounds for disciplinary action”) and a failure to comply with the direction for overtime work (hereinafter referred to as “the grounds for disciplinary action 3”) (hereinafter referred to as “the grounds for disciplinary action 4”), the production and distribution (limited to the Plaintiff A”) of printed materials production and distribution (hereinafter referred to as “the grounds for disciplinary action 4”) violates the company’s information and security policies, and the false academic background (E) (hereinafter referred to as “the grounds for disciplinary action 6 grounds for disciplinary action”)

C. On July 9, 2014, the Plaintiffs and E asserted the instant disciplinary action as an unfair disciplinary action and unfair labor practice, and filed an application for remedy with the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission. The Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission did not recognize the grounds for disciplinary action on October 1, 2014, and the rest of the grounds for disciplinary action recognized is excessive, but only the Intervenor determined that it is difficult to deem that the Intervenor had an intent to engage in unfair labor practice and accepted only the application for remedy for unfair labor practice.

2.3.