1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall include costs resulting from the participation.

The Plaintiff is a school foundation that established on February 15, 1983 and operates B University (hereinafter “instant University”).

The intervenors were enrolled in the University from August 1, 1996 to March 1, 2003, and were serving as the members of the B-university branch of the National University Trade Union (hereinafter “instant trade union”), which is an industrial trade union, the Intervenor C is the head of the branch office, the Intervenor D’s site, the Secretary General, the Intervenor E is the Secretary General, the Intervenor F, and the Intervenor H is the Auditor.

On February 2, 2015, the Plaintiff took disciplinary action against the Intervenor C, E, and H on the ground that the Intervenor excluded the president, who is the final approving authority, from the approval line, or the Plaintiff’s document in accordance with the approval line prior to the issuance of personnel affairs on January 1, 2012, or the Plaintiff’s internal document was disclosed outside the university of this case, etc., and took disciplinary action against the Intervenor C, E, and H against the rest of the intervenors.

(hereinafter “instant disciplinary dismissal.” The Intervenor asserted that the instant disciplinary dismissal was unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices, and filed an application for remedy with the Defendant Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission on March 13, 2015, and the Defendant Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission made the same year.

5. On November 1, 200, the Plaintiff recognized that the instant disciplinary dismissal was unfair on the ground that the determination was excessive, and ordered the Intervenor to return the Intervenor to his original post and to pay the amount equivalent to the amount of wages that the Intervenor could have received if the Intervenor had worked normally, but dismissed the Intervenor’s request for remedy on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to acknowledge the illegal labor practice.

(hereinafter referred to as "the first inquiry court of this case". The intervenors and the plaintiff appealed to the first inquiry court of this case and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on June 19, 2015, and the National Labor Relations Commission "the Intervenor E and H filed an investigation agency on September 14, 2015."