(The main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). (5) On September 15, 2010, the Defendant’s representative director made efforts to ensure authenticity by submitting a written withdrawal of the report of industrial action to the Central Labor Relations Commission on industrial action. On September 28, 2010, the Daegu Regional Employment and Labor Agency urged the Defendant’s representative director to review the following: “Although there is a distance from the confirmation of the intention to withdraw industrial action after a lock-out, through the atmosphere of illegal behavior in the union, documents, etc., and the submission of each union member’s duty to provide good labor, it is difficult to conclude that there is no authenticity of the intention to return to the union’s operation.” In addition, in the course of an interview with the Korean office, in light of the intent to discuss the legal requirements, such as typ, etc., within the framework of the law, it is difficult to conclude that there is no authenticity of the intention to return to the union’s operation.”

E. The Defendant’s representative director, etc., in the process of the relevant criminal case, was prosecuted for the criminal facts stating that “after a lock-out, he/she was under the control of the organization of a trade union by inducing the trade union organization to interfere with contact with the trade union members’ labor union by refusing to enter the union's office after a lock-out, helping the union members return selectively while delaying negotiations, collecting the cell phone of the returned union members, and allowing them to board and lodge in the company, etc.” and was subject to the control of the labor union organization on February 15, 2012.