1. The Defendant’s decision on the imposition of KRW 10,00,000,000, which was June 13, 2014 to the Plaintiff, and KRW 14,400,000,00 as of January 5, 2015.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 6, 2014, the Plaintiff’s worker A and B were absent from office without permission from July 1, 2013 to August 25, 2013 (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 1”), and the Plaintiff’s violation of legitimate business instructions (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 2”) dismissed A and B on the ground that: (a) Company A and B were dismissed.

(hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant dismissal.” On January 13, 2014, A and B filed an application for remedy against unfair dismissal with the Defendant on each of the instant dismissal. On March 10, 2014, the Defendant recognized that each of the instant dismissal was unfair, and issued a remedy order (hereinafter “the instant remedy order”) to the Plaintiff that “the amount equivalent to the wages that could have been received if the dismissal had been reinstated to the original position and had been normally worked during the period of dismissal within 30 days from the date on which the Defendant was served with the Defendant’s written ruling.”

On April 7, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission, but the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision dismissing the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on June 10, 2014.

B. The Plaintiff did not comply with the instant order for remedy.

On June 13, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision imposing KRW 10,000,000 for the enforcement fine for one-lane to the Plaintiff.

Nevertheless, on January 5, 2015, the Defendant decided to impose KRW 14,400,000 on the Plaintiff for non-performance penalty on the part of the Defendant, who did not comply with the order for payment of the amount equivalent to the wages under the instant remedy order.

(hereinafter referred to as "disposition in this case" in the above two times / [the grounds for recognition] without dispute, each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 12 (including serial numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion A and B were absent from office without permission from July 1, 2013 to August 25, 2013, and C distributed false facts with respect to the Plaintiff’s representative director, and instigated members of the Large Transport Trade Union (hereinafter “Large Transport Trade Union”).