1. On April 11, 2014, the National Labor Relations Commission committed unfair labor practices between the Plaintiff and the Defendant joining the Defendant.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) is an organization organized as the representative of the occupants of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B apartment (hereinafter referred to as the “instant apartment”) and the Plaintiff was employed as an apartment security guard on January 1, 2009 by joining the Intervenor.

C Branch of the Seoul District Apartment Trade Union (hereinafter “instant trade union”) composed of some of the instant apartment security guards was established on January 1, 1994. On October 17, 2012, the Plaintiff was elected as the head of the instant trade union C branch of the Trade Union (hereinafter “the head of the Trade Union”).

B. On October 28, 2013, the Intervenor held a disciplinary committee and resolved on a one-month disciplinary measure against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff was in a state of substantially poor working attitude, such as filing a complaint and filing a complaint several times against the representative president and the chief of the management office, and withdrawing the date of the investigation in accordance with his/her working date, and thus, a civil petition was filed,” and notified the Plaintiff thereof.

(hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”). C.

On November 8, 2013, the Plaintiff and the instant trade union filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission on the ground that the instant disciplinary action constitutes unfair suspension from office and unfair labor practices. On January 3, 2014, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a judgment citing all the applications for remedy by the Plaintiff and the instant trade union on the ground that “The instant disciplinary action does not recognize grounds for disciplinary action, and even if some grounds for disciplinary action are recognized, the type of disciplinary action provided for in Article 36 of the Rules of Employment and Article 20 of the collective agreement does not stipulate suspension from office. If the Plaintiff did not join the instant trade union, the instant disciplinary action is deemed not to result in disciplinary action. Therefore, the instant disciplinary action is deemed to constitute unfair labor practices on the grounds of legitimate trade union activities.”

(c).