1. On April 18, 2013, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision on April 18, 2013 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant joining the Defendant, which is 2013 Section 102 and Mano17 (Joint)

1. The circumstances leading to the decision on reexamination of this case

A. The Plaintiff (formerly changed: Gangnam Transportation Co., Ltd.; hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”) is a company that employs 194 full-time workers and operates a taxi transport business, etc. without distinguishing the Plaintiff and Gangnam Transportation Co., Ltd. for convenience.

Plaintiff

In the company, there was a Gangnam Transportation Division under the Democratic taxi Industry Trade Union Federation, but around June 2009, it was changed to the Jincheon Trade Union, a company-level trade union, and the Jinified Trade Union is a trade union in which the majority of all workers of the plaintiff company have joined.

(hereinafter referred to as the “Gangnam Transport Division” and the “Ginified Trade Union” for convenience without distinguishing between the “Ginnam Transport Division” and the “Ginified Trade Union.”

On July 20, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a collective agreement with the Jinified Trade Union (hereinafter “instant collective agreement”) and the main contents of disciplinary action and dismissal are as follows.

Article 45 (Types of Disciplinary Action) Disciplinary action shall be classified into the following categories on the basis of fairness:

(1) A warning: A warning, (2) A reprimand shall be submitted orally, and a written notice of dismissal shall be issued immediately.

Article 47 (Dismissal) If a member falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the labor-management disciplinary committee may dismiss him/her:

(9) A person who arbitrarily alters or manipulates a meter for the purpose of deceiving or embezzlement a fee, refusal to take passengers or concurrent riding two to three times a year, or embezzlement, or a person who intentionally violates the instructions of the company, and (2) a person who causes substantial damages to the company by intentionally or by gross negligence, resulting in a serious accident on the part of the company, and (4) a person who causes a traffic accident at least three times at the end of the year, resulting in the destruction of intra-company order, and a person who makes or spreads a will unfounded for the purpose of destroying the intra-company order.

C. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “the Intervenor”) entered the Plaintiff Company on October 8, 2008 and served as a taxi driver.