1. On September 4, 2014, the National Labor Relations Commission: Central 2014 Supplementary Notes 682 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant joining the Defendant, and Subno101 (Joint).

The plaintiff is a corporation established on December 1, 1993 and employs more than 600 full-time workers, and is engaged in the manufacture and sale of automobile parts. The defendant joining the defendant (hereinafter referred to as "the intervenor") is a worker who joined the plaintiff on November 13, 1991 and was employed by the plaintiff.

The instant disciplinary action was taken against the Intervenor on January 20, 2014 following the resolution of the disciplinary committee on January 20, 2014 by the Intervenor for one month of suspension from office pursuant to Articles 70, 72, and 74 of the Rules of Employment of the Intervenor for the following reasons (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”).

On November 18, 2013, an intervenor must return to his/her work as the time the exemption from working hours ends. However, on November 19, 2013, the intervenor at the early trial tribunal of the Chungcheong Regional Labor Relations Commission, arguing that the instant disciplinary action constitutes an unfair disciplinary action and unfair labor practice on April 7, 2014, the intervenor at the early trial tribunal of the Chungcheongnam-nam Regional Labor Relations Commission, claiming that the instant disciplinary action constitutes an unfair disciplinary action and unfair labor practice on the ground that the intervenor was absent without permission for the said nine-day period; on May 30, 2014, the Chungcheongnam-Nam Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the part of the intervenor’s request for remedy on the ground that “the intervenor was absent without permission for the nine-day period, but it cannot be deemed that the intervenor was absent from work without permission for the said nine-day period; and on the other hand, the Intervenor’s request for remedy was revoked and dismissed on the ground that the instant disciplinary action was excessive.”

On July 4, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Intervenor were all dissatisfied with the first instance trial by the National Labor Relations Commission, and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on July 4, 2014. However, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed all the applications for reexamination by the Plaintiff and the Intervenor on September 4, 2014, on the same ground as the

(hereinafter referred to as "unfair disciplinary action" in the above decision for reexamination shall be construed as "the ground for recognition"). 【No dispute exists, and evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 8 shall be numbered.