1. On April 18, 2017, Defendant D Trade Union confirmed that each expulsion made against the Plaintiffs is null and void.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs are the employees of the corporate body established under the F, who were the members of the Defendant D Trade Union (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Union”), and the Defendant Union is a trade union composed of the employees of D, and Defendant E is the president of the Defendant Union.

B. On November 18, 2016, D issued a personnel assignment order to G, who is an employee, from the wartime experience and operation team to the management planning team.

On November 25, 2016, G and the Defendant Mutual Aid Association filed an application for remedy against D on the ground that the said compensatory measure was an unfair transfer and unfair labor practice.

On January 18, 2017, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a ruling to dismiss a request for remedy from G and Defendant unions.

C. On March 2, 2017, the Defendant Union filed an application for review of remedy with the National Labor Relations Commission, but the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision dismissing the application for review on April 28, 2017.

Accordingly, the defendant union filed a lawsuit against the chairperson of the Seoul Administrative Court for cancellation of the adjudication tribunal on remedy of unfair labor practices (2017Guhap3793), and the above court rendered a judgment dismissing the claim of the defendant union on October 27, 2017, and the above judgment was finalized on November 17, 2017.

On the other hand, on April 5, 2017, the Defendant Union announced the Plaintiffs that disciplinary proceedings will be conducted against the Plaintiffs, and thereafter, on April 18, 2017, the Plaintiff Union held a board of representatives on April 18, 2017, to act against the Plaintiffs’ purpose of existence of the Defendant Union, and collective action that intentionally interferes with the operation of the Defendant Union (hereinafter “instant rules”).

(2) On the ground that the Plaintiffs violated Article 47(1) through (3) [the instant disciplinary action], the Plaintiffs decided to recommend (which refers to supporting 24 marks, opposing 4 marks).

[Plaintiff A] The main act of the Plaintiff did not refuse the use of G typ, but there was concern that it would abuse the provision of exclusion of members of a collective agreement and be an ex post facto problem.