2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is a company that employs approximately 1,00 full-time workers and operates automobile manufacturing and sales business.

An intervenor is a person who joined the plaintiff on November 25, 2002 and served as a part team deputy head.

B. On February 22, 2017, the Plaintiff opened a personnel committee and decided to take disciplinary action against the Intervenor for two months of suspension from office on the ground of the Intervenor’s abusive language, bating bat, etc. (hereinafter “instant assault, etc.”) with respect to the Intervenor’s agent C, and notified the Intervenor of disciplinary action on March 3, 2017, including two months of suspension from office and submission of a report on prevention of recurrence.

On March 23, 2017, the Intervenor appealed and filed a petition for review with the Plaintiff. On March 28, 2017, the Plaintiff’s Review Personnel Committee decided to reduce disciplinary action against the Intervenor as one month of suspension from office. Accordingly, on March 28, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor of disciplinary action, such as suspension from office for one month and submission of a report to prevent recurrence.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant disciplinary action”) which was taken through the Plaintiff’s Review Personnel Committee.

An intervenor filed a request for remedy to the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission that the disciplinary action of this case constitutes an unfair disciplinary action.

On July 3, 2017, the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted a request for remedy of unfair disciplinary action on the ground that “The instant disciplinary action taken in January 201 due to the suspension from office is unreasonable, considering the level of the instant assault, etc. and the equity with other disciplinary cases, even though the instant disciplinary action is recognized.”

(B) the first inquiry court of the case (hereinafter referred to as "the first inquiry court of the case") is d.

On September 29, 2017, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision to dismiss the plaintiff's application for reexamination on the same ground as the original inquiry court of this case.

(C) Nos. 1, 2, and 5 and 6 (including a branch number, hereinafter the same shall apply) are the following facts: (a) there is no dispute; (b) there is no dispute; (c) there is no dispute; and (d) Nos. 1, 2, and 5 and 6 (including a branch number; hereinafter the same shall apply).