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 details of the intervenor’s business, including approximately 34,00 full-time workers at the time of the decision on reexamination, was established under the organization of intervenors and workers engaged in the C industry, such as the organization targets of public enterprises DD (E) (hereinafter “E”), and the number of union members was about 20,000. The number of union members was about 5 local headquarters (Seoul, Daejeon, Permanent Residence, South, and Busan) under the jurisdiction of the Plaintiff’s workplace and E - Facilities Manager (Civil engineering Grade 4) who conducts track maintenance and repair at the F Office of the Chungcheong North Korean Headquarters F Office - E: The Facilities Manager (Civil engineering Grade 4): the Head of the G Regional Headquarters; the members of the Central Dispute Countermeasures Committee; the chairperson of the Local Headquarters and the Chairperson of the Local Headquarters for Countermeasures against the Disputes; the Plaintiff was removed on February 28, 2014 (hereinafter “the removal of the instant case”). The grounds for the disciplinary action led the Plaintiff to collectively offer labor from December 9, 2013 to December 13 (hereinafter “the removal”).

(hereinafter referred to as the "Disciplinary Reason of this case"), which is the ground for disciplinary action, evidence No. 1-1, evidence No. 1-2, evidence No. 1-2, evidence No. 12, and evidence No. 13 of the Rules of Employment (hereinafter referred to as "the ground for disciplinary action of this case"), the ground for recognizing the dismissal of the plaintiff's request for reexamination of disciplinary action and unfair labor practices in the first inquiry court No. 6 (Duty of Good Faith), Article 8 (Prohibited Act), Article 32 (Duty of Good Faith), Article 33 (Prohibition of Fidelity), Article 37 (Duty of Prohibition of Absence), Article 38 (Duty of Maintain Dignity) and Article 52 (Grounds for Disciplinary Action) 1 through 5 of the Rules of Employment No.

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

A. On the grounds delineated below the Plaintiff’s assertion, the decision of the retrial of this case should be revoked as it is unlawful.

1 The main purpose of the instant strike is to “the opposition to the wage negotiations in 2013 and the Intervenor’s H corporation’s investment or establishment,” which is within the scope of the employer’s disposition authority, and is, directly and indirectly, the terms and conditions of employment of the C workers employed by the Intervenor.