1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. All plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

3. The plaintiffs' total costs of litigation.

Details of the disposition

The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “Supplementary Intervenor”) is a company with more than 7,00 full-time workers for the purpose of manufacturing, selling, leasing, etc. the electronic machinery and tools, their parts, and materials. The Plaintiff A entered the Intervenor on March 30, 2006, and the Plaintiff B on September 2, 2004, respectively, and the production worker (referred to as a slurry mixed body and liquid compound or solid solid compounded in the slurry, and the liquid compounded by the production worker at the slurry division of the accelerator manufacturing team. In the batteries, the Defendant is a person working for the mixing business after the completion of the mixing process of the common quantity and liquid materials.).

On July 2, 2012, the Intervenor held a disciplinary committee against the Plaintiffs on July 2, 2012, and decided on each disciplinary measure against the Plaintiffs, applying Article 52 subparag. 1, 4, 11, 17, 26, and Article 53 subparag. 14, 21, and 23 of the Intervenor’s Rules of Employment to the disciplinary measure “for several years, the Plaintiffs neglected to perform their duties by gambling inside and outside of the company, thereby impairing the order of the company” (hereinafter “instant disciplinary measure”). On the same day, the Intervenor notified the Plaintiffs of the dismissal (hereinafter “instant dismissal”).

On July 11, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed an application for unfair dismissal against the dismissal of the instant case with the Chungcheong Regional Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter “ Chungcheongnam-do Labor Relations Commission”), and on August 28, 2012, the Chungcheongnam-do Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ application for remedy on the ground that “the grounds for disciplinary action are recognized and the disciplinary action is also appropriate” (hereinafter “the first trial court of this case”).

On September 10, 2012, the plaintiffs filed an application for reexamination of the first inquiry tribunal of this case with the National Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "China"), and on December 10, 2012, the Central Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Central Labor Relations Commission") dismissed the above application for reexamination on the same grounds as the first inquiry tribunal of this case.