2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

From January 17, 2012 to the delivery date of a copy of the claim and the application for modification of the cause of the claim of this case, the Defendant shall pay to Plaintiff 1 through Plaintiff 104 an amount calculated by the rate of 6% per annum from January 17, 2012 to the delivery date of a copy of the claim of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment. The Defendant confirmed that the reprimand against Plaintiff 105 and 106 on October 31, 201 is null and void.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the first instance judgment shall be revoked, and each plaintiffs' claim shall be dismissed.

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (including attached documents), except for the addition of the following parts, and thus, this Court cites it as it is by Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The addition;

A. Following the first instance judgment’s second 20th 20th 20th 20th 20, “A’s 109, 110, and 111-1 to 4, it is only possible to acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiffs’ union requested the Defendant Company to specify specific grounds for disciplinary action and individual grounds for disciplinary action, even though the Plaintiffs’ union requested the Defendant Company to do so.”

B. The following parts are added between 20 pages 20, 17 and 18 of the judgment of the first instance.

“In order to ensure that the plaintiffs have an opportunity to provide sufficient explanation prior to the holding of the disciplinary committee, the defendant may conduct separate fact-finding investigations for each individual subject to the first disciplinary action in this case three times each time to verify the list of individual misconducts by the plaintiffs, but argued that the plaintiffs refused to provide explanation in accordance with the guidelines of the plaintiffs’ Trade Union. However, each statement of evidence No. 24-1 through No. 4 cannot be deemed to have rejected the plaintiffs’ explanation in accordance with the guidelines of the plaintiffs’ Trade Union, and it cannot be deemed that the disciplinary committee provided the plaintiffs with an opportunity to provide substantial explanation.”

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff 105 and 106's claims are accepted on the grounds of their reasoning, and the plaintiff 1 through 104's claims are accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed on the grounds of their reasoning. The judgment of the court of first instance is just as it is concluded, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed in its entirety.

[Attachment]

Judges Lee Jae-won (Presiding Judge)

(1) The Plaintiffs are workers subject to the disposition of suspension of their duties, suspension of their attendance, or reprimand due to the instant disciplinary action. The Defendant specifically specified the grounds for disciplinary action through the statement of grounds for appeal, provided sufficient opportunity to explain to the Plaintiffs, and the time of returning to work was reflected in the allocation criteria for disciplinary action constitutes legitimate measures. The issues in the instant case are pending in the final appeal of the Supreme Court Decision 2013Na599 Decided June 26, 2014 (2014Da48057, and the lawsuit brought by the Defendant’s employees who were dismissed due to the instant disciplinary action). The court of first instance of the instant case concluded the same conclusion as the previous judgment and maintained it in the trial.