1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are all the plaintiffs, including the costs incurred by the supplementary participation.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The intervenor is a company that employs 156 full-time workers and engages in the manufacturing of chemical products.

Plaintiff

A On January 26, 1993, Plaintiff B, August 8, 2005, and Plaintiff C, on December 8, 1997, are members of the Korean Union of Chemical Textiles Industry D branch (hereinafter “instant trade union”).

B. On June 13, 2013, the Intervenor provided safety and health education for the manufacturing1, 2, public service division, environment and 13 employees.

After the completion of the above education, the Vice Minister marks E with E as a photographic photo, and Plaintiff A intended to force E to cut off his handic photo, and forced E to cut off his handic photo, etc. for about 10 days, and Plaintiff A and B prevented E from going out of the head of the District Education Office, along with F.

In fact, Plaintiff A was sentenced to a fine of KRW 600,000 on August 29, 2014, and a fine of KRW 300,000 on the same day, respectively.

C. On December 16, 2013, the Intervenor: (a) held a disciplinary committee on grounds that the Plaintiff A and B interfered with the conduct of his/her duties by assaulting, detaininging, and interfering with E, his/her workplace employees; (b) decided on two months of suspension from office; and (c) fifteen days of suspension from attendance to Plaintiff B; and (d) notified Plaintiff A and B of the fact on December 19, 2013.

(hereinafter “Suspension from Office” and “Suspension from Office” 15 days for Plaintiff A to work at work. D.

Plaintiff

A had worked as a alternate work in Article 1 before the suspension from office of the instant case, but the intervenor, on February 24, 2014, posted Plaintiff A, who returned to the company after the completion of the suspension from office of the instant case, to one factory work and one week work.

(hereinafter “Change of Placement for Plaintiff A”) In addition, on February 26, 2014, the intervenor placed Plaintiff C who served as a shift work group in a public service division as a part of his/her weekly work group.

(hereinafter referred to as "disposition conversion to Plaintiff C").

The Plaintiffs on March 5, 2014.