1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit include the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. Causes and contents of the decision in the retrial;

A. Defendant Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) was established on December 31, 2004 and employs 28,000 full-time workers, and is a public enterprise engaging in railroad transport, maintenance of rolling stock, manufacture and sale of railroad equipment, etc.

B. The FEU (hereinafter “FEU”) was established for the organization of workers engaged in the railroad industry including the Plaintiffs, and the number of members is about 20,000, and five local headquarters (Seoul, Daejeon, Permanent Residence, South, and Busan) under its control.

C. The Plaintiffs were admitted to the Intervenor and served in the Intervenor’s G Branch, etc., and the members of the FF-related union are all members.

From December 9, 2013 to December 31, 2013, the Plaintiffs participated in illegal collective labor refusal activities (hereinafter “first strike”). Plaintiffs C, D, and E participated in the 24-hour warning strike (hereinafter “second strike”) which was conducted by the FEU on February 25, 2014.

On February 17, 2014, when the Intervenor integrated the cargo train departure inspection service and the exchange service, the Intervenor ordered vehicle managers of the G Office to suspend the cargo train departure inspection service. However, the Plaintiffs refused to follow the direction from February 17, 2014 to March 20, 2014 and conducted the departure inspection for one or ten trains.

On October 30, 2014, with respect to Plaintiff A, B, C, and D, and with respect to Plaintiff E, on October 31, 2014, the Intervenor took a disciplinary measure for two months of reduction of salary as follows.

(hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”) E.

On January 19, 2015, the FEU and the Plaintiffs filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, asserting that “the instant disciplinary action constitutes an unfair disciplinary action and unfair labor practice.”

The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission made an application for remedy on April 29, 2015 on the ground that “the grounds for the disciplinary action against the plaintiffs are recognized, and the disciplinary action is appropriate.” In addition, the instant disciplinary action cannot be deemed unfair labor practice.”