1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. The grounds for disciplinary action taken on September 17, 2012 by the head of the office secretariat of the Korean Union Democratic Trade Union and the Seoul Regional Headquarters A (hereinafter referred to as the “instant trade union”) branch of the D Trade Union (hereinafter referred to as the “instant trade union”), which belongs to the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, on July 21, 2011, as the date on which an intervenor was employed with 7,600 full-time employees of the Plaintiff company engaging in telephone number guidance services, etc. using 7,600 full-time employees of the instant company.

1. Deserting from the place of work without permission, attending meetings, and distributing printed materials against the company during working hours;

2. Neglecting duties;

3. Denial of an order to attend JUP-UP education;

4. The grounds for dismissal of the details of the judgment on December 14, 2012, failing to comply with the request for the attendance of the Disciplinary Committee and the Ethical Management Department to attend an investigation;

1. The rest of the grounds for disciplinary action, excluding the distribution of printed materials, the refusal of attendance by the disciplinary committee and the ethical management division, is recognized. 2. A disciplinary action was imposed more severe than the other disciplinary person on the ground that a disciplinary action takes place on the ground that a majority of illegal assemblies were held, but the meaning of the consent is unclear, and even if a social was held at an assembly, the assembly was held as one of the duties naturally assigned to the union division.

The extent of active participation should be more than that of the E-branch of the instant trade union. Since the president of the E-branch of the instant trade union led all the union activities and planned and acted in accordance with his direction, it would pass through the dismissal of the Intervenor (the first instance judgment was just and judged as to E). The reason for dismissing an application for reexamination of the contents of the decision on April 10, 2013 as of the date of the decision on reexamination.

1. Disciplinary reasons: All the disciplinary actions are recognized; 2. The same as the initial inquiry court. There is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, and the entries in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 in the evidence No. 1, 6, respectively;

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

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is intentional even though the Plaintiff was subject to a disciplinary measure for three months of salary reduction due to his/her job attitude, illegal demonstration, etc.