1. On May 2, 2011, between the Plaintiffs and the Intervenor joining the Defendant and the Defendant’s Intervenor, the Plaintiff was subject to unfair disciplinary action and unfair disciplinary action against the Plaintiffs and the Intervenor.

1. Details of the business of the intervenor company which was incorporated on June 14, 199 and has been in force on the same year; and

7. On November 9, 2016, it is unreasonable to accept the New Venture Business Headquarters from N Co., Ltd. on three months of suspension from office three months of three months of suspension from office and three months of suspension from office, three months of 5 months of 3 months, 7 months of 7 months of suspension from office, 3 months of 7 months G H 8 months of 8 months of suspension from office, 2 months of 3 months of 7 months of 7 months of 8 months of 2 months of 2 months of 2 months of 2 months of 2 months of 3 months of 2 months of 2 months of 3 months of 2 months of 2 months of 2 months of 10, 196, or 3 months of 2 months of 10 months of 2 months of 10 months of 2 months of 10 months of 2 months of 2, or 10 months of 10 months of 3 months of 2 months of 3 months of 2 months of 3 months of 2, or less of 12 months of 3 months of request for new disciplinary action.

The grounds for disciplinary action are that the plaintiffs were subject to three months of suspension from office due to the participation in illegal strike, but continue to hold propaganda events and assemblies that slander the intervenor company outside the place of business during the period, and interfere with access to the place of business by preventing the vehicle of the vice-president of the French head office, etc., which constitutes the grounds for disciplinary action: the plaintiffs' disciplinary action is taken for two months of suspension from office or three months of suspension depending on the severity of