1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. The reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case are as follows: "32,33,36" in Part 16 of the Decision of the court of first instance; "5,57" in Part 23 of the Decision of the court of first instance; "No. 13,14, and 16" in Part 7 of the Decision of the court of first instance; "No. 55" in Part 28; "No. 13, 14, and 16" in Part 7 of the Decision of the court of first instance; "No. 55" in Part 18 of the Judgment of the court of first instance; and "the plaintiff's second strike proceedings" in Part 29 are added to the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance; and therefore, it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act;

(1) The court of first instance that rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion on the grounds of illegality in the procedure of the second strike on February 2, 2007, even if both the evidence submitted by the court of first instance and the additional evidence submitted in the trial are examined, the judgment of the court of first instance that rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion on the grounds of illegality in the procedure of the second strike.

A. In relation to the holding of a separate vote for and against the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff asserts that: (a) it was true that the Railroad Labor Union made a vote for and against union members on wage negotiations in 2013 prior to the first strike; (b) but, as such, it cannot be deemed that the substance of the vote was against the “domination against the establishment of the KTX corporation”; (c) even if the vote for and against the wage negotiations was held, the Plaintiff asserts that the second strike was unlawful due to the fact that the pending issues of this case did not go through the pros and cons voting procedure

However, from November 20, 2013 to November 22, 2013, a union member vote on wage negotiations in 2013 (hereinafter “instant pro-con voting”). On February 25, 2014, the fact that the instant union run the secondary strike with the major requirements for wage negotiations in 2013 and the instant pending issues are as seen earlier. As such, it is deemed that the second strike’s purpose is not related to the instant pro-con voting that is included in the demand for wage negotiations in 2013.