1. The National Labor Relations Commission’s KRW 169,50,000 against the Plaintiff on February 19, 2018, respectively, and KRW 54,00,000, and KRW 54,00,000.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff’s disciplinary action against his employees and the Labor Relations Commission’s remedy procedure 1) was established on June 14, 1999, and the Plaintiff took over the racing business headquarters from B on July 16, 1999, using 770 full-time workers, and is a company that engages in the design, manufacturing, selling, and performing duties as a general commercial company for automobile industrial parts, such as the manufacture of automobile parts, such as an exchange power plant, and the supply of automobile parts, such as a train train, etc., by using 70 full-time workers. 2) The Plaintiff was subject to a disciplinary measure against each worker listed in the relevant list on July 26, 2010 and July 29, 2010, as stated in the relevant list, on July 29, 2010.

Workers who were subject to the above disciplinary action were all executives or members of the E Association, Association, racing branch F Branch, and F Branch (hereinafter “instant branch”).

On July 29, 2010 and August 3, 2010, each of the above workers applied for unfair dismissal, unfair suspension from office, and unfair labor practices to the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission. On October 4, 2010, the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission recognized that the disciplinary action against each of the disciplinary actions and the disciplinary action against C, and decided to dismiss the rest workers' request for remedy.

[Seoul High Court Decision 2010Du460-469, 476-493/buno 105-114, 116-13 (Merger)] The above workers appealed from the part of the first inquiry court on November 1, 2010 and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on November 3, 2010, and the National Labor Relations Commission was justified on January 10, 201, each disciplinary measure of 4,5,11 or 15 No. 15 as stated in the attached Table No. 4, 5, 11 or 15 is justifiable, and the relevant part in the first inquiry court was revoked, and the remaining workers and all of the rest of the plaintiffs are dismissed.

[The First Review Decision of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the First Review Decision of this case") dated 9 November 2010, China, 2010, 1159/Bo407, hereinafter referred to as "Central 2010. The 3 plaintiffs are listed in the attached list 2.