1. The National Labor Relations Commission’s unfair labor practice between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Intervenor on May 22, 2012.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that is established on July 13, 201 as a nationwide trade union for the organization of C Group and its affiliated companies, or its employees, and the Defendant Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is a corporation that employs 4,400 full-time workers as an affiliate of C Group and operates D (hereinafter “D”).

B. The Plaintiff’s Intervenor ① on August 26, 201, as of August 27, 201, and ② the same year.

9. The act of controlling the Plaintiff’s distribution of printed materials on the 16th day of the same month constitutes an unfair labor act of controlling and entering.

The plaintiff filed an application for remedy with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission for unfair labor practices, and on January 18, 2012, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the plaintiff's application for remedy on the ground that the intervenor's act of expulsion does not constitute unfair labor practices.

Gyeonggi (Game 201No131). (c)

On May 22, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for review with the National Labor Relations Commission. On May 22, 2012, the National Labor Relations Commission accepted only part of the Plaintiff’s application for review on the ground that the Intervenor’s act of the first paragraph (1) constitutes unfair labor practice.

Central 2012 No. 92, No. 3, see Evidence 2012, No. 3, hereinafter the above retrial ruling, which judged that the action of the above No. 2 does not constitute an unfair labor practice, is referred to as "the retrial ruling

(i) [In the absence of a dispute over the grounds for recognition, entry in Gap evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings;

2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful

A. On September 9, 201 and September 16, 2011, four members of the Plaintiff’s assertion and four employees, including E, who were the Intervenor’s employees, distributed printed materials to promote the Plaintiff’s establishment and workers’ active participation at the bus sub-city of the Intervenor’s transit bus, along with some external personnel supporting the Plaintiff’s establishment. This is reasonable by the Plaintiff.