1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. On August 27, 2012, the grounds for disciplinary action disciplinary action taken against a worker’s name trade union position in the process of the decision on reexamination: (a) the reduction of the head of the division 1 C and 3 months of the disciplinary action; and (b) the reduction of the number of the members of the division 2D, such as the spread of false facts on August 27, 2012; and (c) the spread of false facts on August 27, 2012; and (d) the reduction of the number of employees working on June 25, 2012; and (e) the spread of false facts on August 2

A. The Plaintiff was established on May 31, 1966 and operated a taxi transport business using 160 full-time workers in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government. The former National Housing Trade Union (hereinafter “instant trade union”) is an industrial trade union under the General Federation of the Korean Democratic Labor Union, which is organized by the employees engaged in the nationwide taxi industry, and the Plaintiff company is established a subdivision of the former National Housing Trade Union A (hereinafter “the branch of the instant trade union”). The intervenors are workers belonging to the Plaintiff company, and C is the chief of the instant trade union, the Intervenor D is the chief of the instant trade union, the Intervenor D is the chief of the labor union, and the division of the instant trade union. The intervenors were subject to disciplinary action against the Plaintiff as described below.

B. The Intervenor and the instant trade union filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission on September 25, 2012, asserting that the Plaintiff’s act of refusing to use the message board was an unfair labor practice by asserting that the Plaintiff’s act of refusing to use the message board was an unfair labor practice by 30 days against the Intervenor B on June 25, 2012, and that the disciplinary action for each pay-off 3 months against the Intervenor on August 27, 2012 was an unfair labor practice at the same time as an unfair disciplinary action. The Plaintiff demanded the details of revenue and expenditure as to the request to use the message board for public notice on the settlement of accounts of the instant trade union on July 16, 2012, and filed an application for remedy with both the Intervenor and the instant trade union on November 19, 2012. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the application of both the Intervenor and the instant trade union.

Seoul 2012Renmark 2217/Reno77). (c)

2.3.