1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall include costs resulting from the participation.

The status intervenor of the party involved in the decision of this case is a corporation that provides medical services using more than 3,00 full-time workers. The plaintiff A was employed by the intervenor on September 5, 1990 and worked at the secretariat's original team. The plaintiff B was employed by the intervenor on January 16, 1984 and worked at the secretariat's general affairs team.

The instant disciplinary intervenor, following the resolution of the disciplinary committee, was subject to the disciplinary action against the Plaintiffs on November 29, 2013, and was subject to three months of suspension from office and one month of reduction in salary B due to the following disciplinary grounds (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”).

Among the materials submitted by the Plaintiffs to the Board of Audit and Inspection (Regulatory Report Center for Business Start-up to Busan), and the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission, it is determined that ① the list of candidates for promotion, ② the details of submission of materials for deliberation by the Personnel Committee, and the details of submission from the Plaintiffs were disclosed. As a result, upon request in writing, it is confirmed that the Plaintiffs submitted evidentiary materials, such as ① the order of priority in the list of candidates for promotion and the results of deliberation by the Personnel Committee, ② the results of deliberation by the Fourth Personnel Committee, ② the submission of evidentiary materials, etc., and these series of actions can be seen as “disclosure of secrets” and “violation of the matters to be observed under the provisions of paragraph (1).” Accordingly, the Plaintiffs who were subject to disciplinary action pursuant to Article 19 (Prohibition of Divulgence of Confidential Information) and Article 58 (Prohibition of Disciplinary Sanction) subparagraph 1 of the Personnel Regulations were dissatisfied with such disciplinary action, but the Intervenor was subject to a disciplinary action on December 23, 2013.

(2) On January 24, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy with the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission, claiming that each of the instant disciplinary actions constituted an unfair disciplinary action.