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

A. The Plaintiff is a company that employs approximately 180 full-time workers and engages in the service business related to electronic trade. The Intervenor is a worker belonging to the Plaintiff who was employed by the Plaintiff on November 14, 1994, and the A Trade Union (hereinafter “instant trade union”) is a company-level trade union established on August 27, 2002, whose organization is the Plaintiff’s employees.

B. On June 30, 2015, the Plaintiff issued an intervenor who returned to work after completing the term of office of the chairman of the instant trade union as the head of the Busan Enterprise Support Team as of July 1, 2015, and on July 31, 2015, the Intervenor was absent from work without permission due to the grounds for disciplinary action against the Intervenor.

C. On July 1, 2015, the Intervenor and the instant trade union asserted that the Plaintiff’s transfer order (hereinafter “instant transfer order”) issued by the Intervenor on July 1, 2015 and the reprimand disposition (hereinafter “instant disciplinary measure”) on July 31, 2015 constituted unfair transfer and unfair labor practices, and filed an application for remedy with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission on August 7, 2015. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered an application for remedy to the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission on August 7, 2015. Although the instant transfer order and disciplinary measure were unfair on October 5, 2015, it determined that it does not constitute unfair labor practices, and cited the remainder of the application for remedy by the Intervenor and the instant trade union, excluding the part relating to unfair labor practices.

The Plaintiff and the instant trade union were dissatisfied therewith and filed an application for review with the National Labor Relations Commission, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed all their applications for review on February 11, 2016.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision by reexamination”). 【No dispute exists, entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful

A. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 of the transfer order of this case, the Plaintiff is the intervenor in relation to the return to the present business.