1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

The details and details of the Re-Examination Decision are public enterprises established on December 31, 2004 and employing 28,000 full-time workers and engaging in transportation of railroads, maintenance of rolling stock, manufacture and sale of railroad equipment, etc.

The National Railroad Workers' Union (hereinafter referred to as the "railroad Workers' Union") was established for the organization of workers engaged in the railroad industry including the defendant's supplementary intervenors (hereinafter referred to as "participatings"), and each individual refers to [Attachment 1] according to the sequence in the number column of the defendant's supplementary intervenors' list. The number of union members is about 20,000, and five local headquarters (Seoul, Daejeon, Daejeon, Permanent Residence, South, and Busan) are under its control.

The intervenors entered the plaintiff and worked at the places of business belonging to the Gwangju and the Jeonnam Headquarters, and the members of the Korean Railroad Union are union members.

As to the Intervenor 2 and 13 on July 10, 2014, the Plaintiff planned, attempted, or actively participated in, the instant strike against the Intervenor on July 11, 2014, and against the remaining intervenors other than them on July 11, 2014.

Based on the grounds stated in Articles 6 and 8 of the Rules of Employment and Articles 32, 33, 37, 38, and 52 subparag. 1 through 5 of the Personnel Regulations (attached Form 2), the Intervenor made a disposition of suspension from office or reduction of salary as stated in the column for reexamination (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”). On October 6, 2014, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy against the instant disciplinary action with the former Southern Regional Labor Relations Commission. The former Southern Regional Labor Relations Commission on January 26, 2015 appears to have the primary purpose of the instant strike is to oppose accusation, provisional attachment, withdrawal of disciplinary action, etc., and unilateral restructuring, and it is difficult to recognize it as a legitimate purpose of industrial action, and thus, the instant strike is unlawful.

Any disciplinary action taken against the intervenors other than the intervenors 1, 2, and 3 is appropriate, but against the Intervenor 1, 2, and 3.