1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. The circumstances leading to the decision on reexamination of this case

A. The Plaintiff is a company that employs 260 full-time workers and engages in the manufacture and sale of semiconductor equipment and parts thereof (amended by the current trade name from March 2, 201 to March 2, 201), and the intervenors were members of the Korean Metal Trade Union B branches (hereinafter “this case’s Trade Union”) established by the Plaintiff company as workers employed by the Plaintiff company and employed by the Intervenor.

B. On November 7, 201, 206, the Plaintiff selected 62 employees, 30% of production workers, as employees subject to layoff, and dismissed 54 workers (53 members including intervenors, and 1 non-members) on business grounds, excluding 8 voluntary retirees, etc. on November 7, 201.

(hereinafter “instant layoff”) C.

On November 6, 2011, the intervenors filed an application for remedy with the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission for unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices by asserting that the instant layoff was unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices. On February 29, 2012, the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission received the application for remedy by deeming the instant layoff constituted unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices.

On March 30, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission. On July 19, 2012, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Intervenor’s application for reexamination on the unfair dismissal portion on the ground that “The need for the management of the instant layoff and the efforts to avoid dismissal are recognized, but it is difficult to deem the Plaintiff to have secured objectivity in selecting those who are subject to layoff, so it is reasonable to select those who are subject to layoff except for the above work capacity. The Intervenor dismissed the Intervenor’s application for reexamination on the ground that the Intervenor’s application for reexamination on the unfair dismissal portion on the ground that “if the Intervenor calculates the order of dismissal excluding work capacity

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). [Ground of recognition] A does not dispute, and evidence No. 1 exists, respectively.