1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff as the party to the instant decision was established on June 10, 1999 and employs 1,500 full-time workers and engaged in the manufacture and sale of red ginseng and red ginseng products. The intervenor is a person who joined the Plaintiff on December 13, 1979 and was working in B office from March 20, 2003.

On June 11, 2014, following the resolution of the disciplinary committee, the Plaintiff taken disciplinary action against the Intervenor by disciplinary action on the ground that the Intervenor was subject to disciplinary action on the following grounds (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”).

(hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”). 【Grounds for Disciplinary Action】

1. An intervenor may divide the ginseng of C, which is an interested party, into the raw ginseng, white ginseng, red ginseng, etc., when he/she works at the B business place directly related to the cultivation and the purchase of ginseng. Among them, the raw ginseng refers to the ginseng harvested from the side in an unprocessed state after harvesting the cultivated ginseng from the arable area;

(1) The amount of equity investment equivalent to KRW 350,000,000 or the amount of money lending and borrowing transactions equivalent to the amount of KRW 352,60,000 (hereinafter referred to as "Disciplinary Reason 1").

3. Determination of the unit purchase price of raw ginseng harvested from C’s pool land at will (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 2”) at a higher level (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 3”) on the following grounds: (a) the purchase price of raw ginseng harvested from C’s pool land is set at will;

4. At the time of investigation on April 21, 2014, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy with the previous North Regional Labor Relations Commission on July 3, 2014, asserting that the instant disciplinary action was unfair, with respect to the details of monetary lending and borrowing transactions with C (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 4”), and the previous North Regional Labor Relations Commission cited the Intervenor’s application for remedy on August 29, 2014.

On September 3, 2014, the plaintiff of the review decision by the National Labor Relations Commission was dissatisfied with the above review decision by the National Labor Relations Commission and applied for a review to the National Labor Relations Commission.