1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was established on October 10, 2012 and engaged in online and mobile game development, sales, and service business.

B. A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J, K, M, M, N, P, Q, Q, Q, U, V, and W (hereinafter in succession referred to as “instant worker,” including the said twenty-three workers, asserted that the dismissal made to the Defendant on June 22, 2014 (hereinafter “instant dismissal”), the Plaintiff filed a request for remedy on May 14, 2015 (hereinafter “instant dismissal”), and the Defendant recognized that the dismissal was unfair, and the Plaintiff rendered a request for remedy on September 7, 2015, the Plaintiff determined that each of the monetary compensation (hereinafter “instant monetary compensation”) was unfair in lieu of the reinstatement to the instant worker (hereinafter “instant monetary compensation”).

Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission (Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2015buone 1590). (c)

On October 12, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Du1040), and on November 12, 2015, the Defendant submitted a notice of the result of the implementation of an order of remedy (Evidence (Evidence (Evidence (No. 2) to the Labor Relations Commission, which is not unfair until the final decision of the Supreme Court is made, and it is impossible to comply with the first detailed decision of the Labor Relations Commission, which is not unfair until the final decision of the Supreme Court) and rejected the implementation of the order of remedy.

On January 13, 2016, the Defendant imposed the first enforcement fine of KRW 115,00,000 on the Plaintiff (=each of KRW 5,000,000 per worker x 23).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition of enforcement fine”). E.

On February 24, 2016, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for reexamination.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 9, 10, 13 (including branch numbers for those with provisional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 15, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition of the instant non-performance penalty is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion is that the plaintiff is engaged in the development of this case's workers.