1. On February 19, 2013, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a central decision on February 19, 2012 between the Plaintiffs and the Intervenor joining the Defendant, which was 2012.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) employs more than 170 persons, and manufactures and sells plastic additives, electronic materials, food materials, etc. The Plaintiff A entered the Intervenor Company in 2001, Plaintiff B, and Plaintiff B, established on July 4, 201, and served as C (Plaintiff A) and D (Plaintiff B) of the Korean Association of Chemical Textiles Industry and Trade Union (hereinafter “instant Trade Union”) established on July 4, 201.

Members of the Trade Union of this case are 39 persons.

B. On July 9, 2012, the Intervenor: (a) held a personnel committee for the Plaintiffs to refuse to comply with, and interfere with, their duties; (b) decided to take a four-month measure of suspension from office against the Plaintiffs on the ground that the Intervenor left his/her workplace without permission and insulting his/her superior position; and (c) notified the Plaintiffs of the above disciplinary measure on the 20th of the same month

C. On September 21, 2012, the Plaintiffs and the instant Trade Union asserted that the said disciplinary action was an unfair disciplinary action and unfair labor practice, and defects in the filing of an application for remedy against unfair labor practice, and the Intervenor, on October 15, 2012, notified the Plaintiffs of one month of suspension from office by reducing the period of suspension from office of the said disciplinary action.

(hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”). On November 20, 2012, the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed both the Plaintiffs and the instant application for the instant Trade Union.

On December 6, 2012, the Plaintiffs and the Labor Relations Commission filed an application for review of unfair disciplinary action and unfair labor practice relief with the National Labor Relations Commission, which was dissatisfied with the first inquiry tribunal, and the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiffs and the application for labor practice relief.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision by reexamination”). / [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion 1) On October 21, 201, when there is no ground for disciplinary action, education on the management environment.