1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal, including the part arising from the participation in the appeal.

I. Comparing and comparing facts recognized by the reasoning of the first instance judgment citing the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, the findings and judgments of the first instance judgment are all justified.

This paper examines each of the descriptions of Gap 36 No. 36-1 through 10 submitted by the plaintiff in the appellate court by adding them to the above basis of recognition.

Accordingly, the reason for the judgment of the court of first instance is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Under the following, the plaintiff will also take into consideration the argument that the plaintiff will repeat, modify, or add.

Ⅱ The plaintiff's major argument in the appellate trial and its judgment

1. The plaintiff asserts that the payment of performance bonus at a differential level does not constitute an unfair labor practice in which performance bonus at a differential level is treated as unfair, since performance evaluation standards and the performance evaluation accordingly are fair.

However, there is no reasonable explanation that some intervenors are given a lower grade to the branch and labor union members on the basis of low performance rating and poor service attitude of some intervenors.

In addition to these circumstances, the performance evaluation criteria in the latter part of 2015 do not seem to be essentially different from the performance evaluation criteria in the second half of 2014.

Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is rejected.

2. The plaintiff asserts that he did not intend to engage in unfair labor practices.

However, when the plaintiff sent text messages to its officers and employees, the plaintiff clearly expressed his/her intention to give disadvantage to the union members who engage in trade union activities.

In addition, some of the intervenors asked the team leader belonging to the plaintiff to be able to receive a high rating in performance evaluation, and they also heard the answer that the team leader should withdraw from the meeting.

The facts of recognition are cited as the reasons for the judgment above.