1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs ordering the cancellation of the above unfair suspension shall be revoked.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The intervenor was established on June 14, 1999 and operated on the same year

7. A company which takes over the racing business headquarters from N Co., Ltd. on 16. 10 and ordinarily employs 880 full-time workers, manufactures and supplies automobile parts, such as automobile parts, such as a power generator, a starting scooter, etc., to complete vehicles, and operates a business such as designing, manufacturing, selling, and conducting business affairs as a general commercial company.

B. The Plaintiffs are annexed to each date stated in the column of the disciplinary date of the following table while they were employed by the Intervenor on each date stated below as the date of entry and were engaged in the service sector promotion or as an employee.

1. Based on the same reasons as stated in the grounds for disciplinary action and grounds for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff, the participants who are members of the P Branch (hereinafter “P Branch”) or the P Branch (hereinafter “P Branch”) affiliated with the Ono-Hamdong Branch (hereinafter “P Branch”) subject to a three-month disciplinary action of suspension (hereinafter “instant suspension disposition”) from the Intervenor Company.

On February 18, 191, the position of the labor union No. 1 for the date of disciplinary action on the date of job entry. 1 A A on August 13, 1986, B B to the members of the branch association on April 22, 1991, 3 C to the members of the branch association on May 23, 191, 4D 191, 44 members of the branch association on July 21, 1989, 4 D 5 E on July 21, 1989, 4 members of the branch association on November 1, 1990 7, 1992, 4 members of the branch association on November 6, 1992, 19 "members of the 600 members of the branch association on April 7, 198, 80 members of the members of the branch association on September 19, 199.

C. The Plaintiffs asserted that the instant suspension order was unfair and applied for remedy for unfair labor practices to the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission. However, on April 27, 2011, the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed all the Plaintiffs’ request for remedy. On May 11, 2011, the request for review was filed with the National Labor Relations Commission. However, the National Labor Relations Commission filed an application for reexamination on July 14, 201 with the National Labor Relations Commission.