1. On May 4, 2015, the National Labor Relations Commission discriminates against the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Intervenor in the Central 2015.

The National Institute of Korean History, which is the Ministry of Education affiliated with the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the "National Institute of Korean History") shall employ about 90 public officials, feed researchers, office assistants, etc. to collect and compile Korean history-related feed in accordance with the Act on the Collection, Compilation, Distribution, etc. of Korean History. The intervenors are one-year workers who signed an employment contract with the plaintiff and work as feed researchers at the Committee of this case.

The intervenors filed an application for correction with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission on October 6, 2014, asserting that the basic salary, performance bonus, holiday bonus, research service allowance, fixed attendance allowance, additional dues for overtime work, fixed amount of job allowance, job-class allowance, fixed meal allowance, family allowances, etc. paid by the Plaintiff to the public officials in research service constituted discriminatory treatment prohibited under Article 8 of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Fixed-Term and Part-Time Workers (hereinafter “fixed-Term Act”). On December 30, 2014, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the part of the performance bonus for the year 2013 among the above applications, and the part of the Plaintiff’s performance bonus for the year 2013 from April 1, 2014 to the Intervenor.

9. Until 30.30., it was recognized that the non-payment of family allowances and fixed meal expenses is discriminatory treatment, and the remainder was dismissed.

The Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination on February 6, 2015, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for reexamination on the same ground as of May 4, 2015. However, the Intervenor D changed the amount of KRW 3,290,100 to KRW 2,720,100 on the ground that the Intervenor D was under childcare leave from March 2014 to June 2014.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision by reexamination”). [This case’s ground for recognition] does not dispute, and Article 8(1) of the instant decision by reexamination as to the legitimacy of the instant decision by reexamination as stated in the evidence Nos. 21 and 22.