1. On May 1, 2015, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered aid to the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Intervenor with unfair salary reduction in the attached Table 2015.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a company engaging in banking business, etc. using 5,200 regular workers.

On December 3, 2007, the Intervenor’s Intervenor (the name stated in the application for intervention was also called “B” or “C” in the daily life. The Intervenor (hereinafter referred to as “ Intervenor”) began to work for the Plaintiff on December 3, 2007.

B. On November 2013, the Plaintiff rendered a disciplinary action against the Intervenor to the effect that the Intervenor “a person shall be punished by the suspension from office for two months as of November 13, 2013 due to the refusal of service and the bad faith” (hereinafter “the first suspension disciplinary action”).

On January 28, 2014, the Intervenor filed a petition for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, and the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission (Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission) recognized that the first suspension from office was unfair on the ground that “the grounds for disciplinary action against the Intervenor are recognized, but the amount of disciplinary action is excessive,” and ordered the Plaintiff to remedy the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff filed an application for review with the National Labor Relations Commission, but the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision to dismiss the above application for review on April 29, 2014.

On December 18, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a revocation suit against the Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2014Guhap10912, and the Seoul Administrative Court rendered a judgment revoking the said new trial ruling on the ground that “The first suspension of office against the Intervenor cannot be deemed to have deviates from or abused the discretion of disciplinary action as the primary suspension of office significantly loses validity under social norms.”

The Defendant filed an appeal with Seoul High Court No. 2015Nu30946, but the Seoul High Court rendered a decision to dismiss the appeal on July 10, 2015. The Intervenor filed an appeal with the Supreme Court Decision No. 2015Du49146, but the Supreme Court rendered a decision to dismiss the appeal on November 12, 2015.

Accordingly, the judgment of the court of first instance became final and conclusive.

C. Meanwhile, on the other hand, the Plaintiff and one computer monitor during the period of suspension from office following the first suspension of office for the intervenors around March 2014.