1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall be the remainder except the plaintiff G and I (Plaintiff 47).

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the underlying facts is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following modifications or additions. Therefore, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

On October 24, 2013, Seoul High Court (Seoul High Court 2013Nu12685) ruled that "The appeal is pending in the appellate court as of Seoul High Court 2013Nu12685)" is "Seoul High Court (Seoul High Court 2013Nu12685) dismissed the appeal by the defendant company on October 24, 2013, and the defendant company filed an appeal (Supreme Court 2013Du24426) but was dismissed," and "The appeal is pending in the appellate court as of the Daejeon High Court 2013Na599, the Daejeon High Court (Seoul High Court 2013Na599) was also declared to be null and void on June 26, 2014."

B. The following parts are added between 15, 18 and 19 of the judgment of the first instance.

(i) The Defendant Company’s disciplinary action against 126 persons to be disciplined on November 3, 201 through the same disciplinary procedure as that of the first and second disciplinary action (three public officials in special service, 22 persons reprimands, 101 in writing warnings; hereinafter “third disciplinary action”).

A) On November 15, 201, the instant disciplinary action against two persons to be disciplined (hereinafter “the fourth disciplinary action”) was completed, and the sum of the first and fourth disciplinary actions is “the instant disciplinary action”.

The court completed the proceedings.

“”

C. The following parts are added between the first instance judgment Nos. 18, 2 and 3.

(j) On the premise that the instant disciplinary measure is null and void, some of the Plaintiffs’ union employees, who were subject to the instant disciplinary measure, such as dismissal or suspension of attendance, filed a lawsuit seeking payment of the amount equivalent to 150% of the average wage during the period of the disciplinary measure, under the premise that the instant disciplinary measure is null and void.