1. On October 27, 2015, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered relief from unfair suspension from office between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Intervenor.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that employs approximately forty-five regular workers and runs the repair business of machinery and equipment, the surface disposal business of industrial machinery, etc.

B. On July 1, 2004, the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) joined the Plaintiff Company as a production worker, and served as a contact worker at the Plaintiff’s second factory located in Ansan-si, Masan-si.

C. On July 4, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) instructed two workers including the Intervenor, etc. to make a business trip from July 8, 2013 to July 12, 2013 to the Plaintiff’s head office located in Busan Seo-gu; and (b) the Intervenor did not take a business trip after having a dispute with the Plaintiff’s Vice-head F with regard to working conditions, such as inconvenience in living and payment of exit equipment.

Accordingly, on July 18, 2013, the Plaintiff dismissed the Intervenor as the grounds for the instant disciplinary action (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”).

E. The Intervenor filed an application for remedy by asserting that the said dismissal constituted unfair dismissal with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter “Game Labor Relations Commission”) and granted the Intervenor’s application for remedy on September 9, 2013 on the ground that the Gyeonggi Labor Relations Commission excessive disciplinary action on September 9, 2013.

(F) On September 23, 2013, the Plaintiff returned the Intervenor to his former former office and paid the amount equivalent to the amount of the unpaid wages to the Intervenor. On October 30, 2013, the Plaintiff imposed a three-month suspension from office (the suspension from office from November 1, 2013 to January 31, 2014) due to the instant disciplinary cause against the Intervenor.

G. The Intervenor filed a petition for remedy by asserting that the suspension from office was unfair on the Gyeonggi Labor Relations Commission, and the Gyeonggi Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Intervenor’s petition for remedy (Seoul High Court Decision 2013Da1655). However, the Intervenor filed a petition for review against it and filed a petition for review, and “China Labor Relations Commission below the National Labor Relations Commission.”

On April 9, 2014, the Intervenor accepted the Intervenor’s request for remedy on the ground that the Intervenor’s disciplinary action is excessive (central 2014.h.

2.3.