1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including those resulting from the participation, shall be all included.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) is a corporation whose purpose of business is changed to real estate rental business, etc. on May 22, 2009 while operating electronic and other manufacturing and sales business.

B. On February 8, 2001, the attached list 15 of the Plaintiff’s list among the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s trade union”) constituted a nationwide industrial trade union consisting of 144,500 workers engaged in the metal industry and metal-related industry, with which the number of workers was 14,500 members.

Of the plaintiffs, workers Nos. 1 through 14 in the annexed list 1 through 14 (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff workers") are those who joined and work for the intervenor company. Workers in the annexed list 1 through 13 (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff workers who are union members") are union members of the instant sub-council.

C. On May 29, 2012, the Intervenor sent a notice of dismissal to the Plaintiff’s workers on the ground of business discontinuance.

(hereinafter “instant dismissal”) D.

The Plaintiffs asserted that the dismissal of the instant case constitutes unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices, and that the dismissal on July 4, 2012 and the same year.

8. October 10, 201, the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission filed an application for remedy against unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices with the Plaintiff’s worker. On November 5, 2012, the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s employees’ application for remedy against unfair dismissal on August 31, 2008 on the ground that the Intervenor’s failure to return to work and dismissed the Plaintiff’s employees on the ground that there was no remedy for the failure to return, and dismissed the application for remedy against unfair labor practices by the Plaintiff’s employees and the Plaintiff’s labor union on the ground that the dismissal of this case does not constitute unfair labor practices.

E. On December 7, 2012, the Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the above initial inquiry court and applied for reexamination to the National Labor Relations Commission. The National Labor Relations Commission was on March 4, 2013 on the same ground as the above initial inquiry court.