1. The plaintiff A's lawsuit is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff B's claim is dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

A. The Plaintiff Company A (hereinafter “Plaintiff Company”) is a multi-national company that produces and sells automobile parts by employing 620 employees.

Plaintiff

B was in charge of management of the Plaintiff Company as a joint representative director of the Plaintiff Company.

B. Defendant Korea Metal Trade Union C Branch (hereinafter “Defendant Branch”) is a member of 165 workers from among 620 Plaintiff’s total workers.

Defendant D is the president of Defendant Branch, Defendant E is the director of Defendant Branch, Defendant F is the director of Defendant Branch, Defendant F is the director of Defendant Branch’s office, Defendant G is the director of education and publicity division belonging to Defendant Branch’s office, Defendant H is the representative belonging to Defendant Branch’s office.

C. (1) Defendant Branch refused to engage in night work and holiday work on December 30, 201, and on January 4, 2012, Defendant Branch of Branch of Branch of Branch of Branch of Branch of Branch of Branch of Branch of Branch of Branch of Branch of Branch of Branch of Branch of Branch of Branch of Branch of Group of Group of Group of Group of Group of Group of Group of Group of Group of Group of Group of Group of Group of Group of Group of Group of Group of Group of Group of Group of Group of Group of Group of Group 1

Accordingly, the Plaintiff Company, the employer, was subject to three months of dismissal and suspension from office against Defendant D who led the strike.

3) From February 21, 2012, Defendant Branch, alleging that the above disciplinary action was under the pressure of the trade union, and met the Plaintiff Company’s work during daily work hours, and interfered with the Plaintiff Company’s work by using the Plaintiff Company’s emotional skill and desire in the corridor of the Plaintiff Company’s office. (4) On March 21, 2012, the Defendants mobilized 120 participants (including outside forces) without permission in the Plaintiff Company’s office, despite the suspension of employees belonging to the Plaintiff Company and security guards.

5 The plaintiff company is applying the common law to the workplace of each country of the world according to the instruction of the head office A in Germany.