1. It is confirmed that the Defendant’s respective disposition of suspension from office against the Plaintiffs on August 10, 2012 is invalid.

2. The defendant shall grant the plaintiff A 24.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a company engaged in the production and supply of E. The Plaintiff Company is an International Deputy Director in the news report bureau, the Plaintiff B is an International Deputy Director Treatment in the news report bureau, the Plaintiff C is an employee who works as a Vice Deputy Director Treatment in the news report bureau, the Korean Press Trade Union D branch (hereinafter “Defendant Trade Union”) (the Plaintiff: the head of the branch, the Plaintiff B: the chairperson of the Fair Broadcasting Promotion Committee, and the Plaintiff C).

B. On August 10, 2012, the Defendant took each disciplinary measure against the Plaintiff A, 4 months of suspension from office, 3 months of suspension from office against the Plaintiff, 3 months of suspension from office against the Plaintiff B, and 2 months of suspension from office against the Plaintiff C, on the ground that “the Defendant: (a) was led to illegal strike; (b) was led to the rejection of an order to return to work; and (c) was engaged in interference and leading through illegal occupancy of the 17th floor corridor ( April 2, 2012, 3,4,6, 16, 16, 16 May 16, 20

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 3 (if there is an additional number, including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The disciplinary action against the plaintiffs is procedural defect in the procedure of the resolution by the personnel committee held while three members of the personnel committee to which the exclusion provision applies under the defendant's standing penalty provision are present.

In addition, the strike in which the plaintiffs participated is conducted on behalf of workers in the labor union, and the legitimacy of the purpose is recognized, so it does not constitute an illegal strike. Since the order to return to work during a legitimate strike is unfair, it cannot be deemed as a ground for disciplinary action, and the occupation of the labor union, such as street rain, is also limited as part of a legitimate industrial action.

Therefore, there are no grounds for disciplinary action asserted by the Defendant, and even if there are grounds for disciplinary action, the disciplinary action is excessive.

Therefore, each disciplinary measure against the plaintiffs is null and void, and the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiffs the money stated in the claim of the period of suspension.