1. All appeals of this case are dismissed.

2. Of the costs of appeal, the part resulting from the intervention is the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

1. The reasons why the court of the first instance cited this case are as follows: ① (i) the grounds for the first instance judgment, which read “ October 21, 2012,” which read “ October 21, 201,” which read “ October 21, 201,” and (ii) the grounds for the first instance judgment, except for adding the following judgments:

Therefore, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary Judgment] The defendant and the intervenor asserted that the disciplinary action against the plaintiffs was appropriate, while the defendant and the intervenor have reached the trial.

However, according to the facts and evidence admitted by the first instance court as above, the plaintiffs' misconduct in the process of representing the interests of the union members as the C and D of the Trade Union of this case, in addition to the failure of the plaintiff A's duty order, there is room to consider the motive or circumstance.

On the other hand, the intervenor revised the rules of employment around July 22, 201 without the consent of the Trade Union of this case, and there are circumstances suspected that the intervenor excluded the participation in the Trade Union of this case while providing management environment education to the employees around October 21, 201 (the intervenor did not reasonably explain the reasons why one of the 39 members of the Trade Union of this case did not attend the above management environment education). The relationship between the Trade Union of this case and the Intervenor becomes worse, and the plaintiffs did not neglect the intervenor's responsibility.

On the other hand, Article 16 of the Intervenor’s collective agreement and Article 70 of the Rules of Employment stipulate the types of disciplinary action against employees engaged in misconduct, such as reprimand, reduction of pay, suspension of attendance, demotion, suspension of duty, suspension of duty, and disciplinary action, the suspension of duty constitutes a heavier disciplinary action, and then the intervenor is subject to a more minor disciplinary action.