1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The circumstances leading to the decision on reexamination of this case

A. The Plaintiff is a company that employs 5,500 regular workers and engages in the manufacture, sale, etc. of automobiles.

On July 7, 1997, the intervenor entered the Plaintiff Company and took charge of the liquid chain (AXE) process as a responsible technician.

The National Metal Trade Union (hereinafter referred to as the “MMMMM”) is an industrial trade union established on February 8, 2001 for workers engaged in the metal industry and metal-related industries.

Plaintiff

In the Company, the metal labor union B Mano three-party branch (hereinafter referred to as the “instant branch”) was established on August 21, 201, and the Intervenor was appointed as the chief site president of the instant branch.

B. On November 1, 2011, the Plaintiff distributed printed materials to the Intervenor within the Plaintiff’s factory without the Plaintiff’s approval (hereinafter “the Intervenor”) on August 23, 2011, and took verbal abuse, abusive speech, and assault against the Plaintiff’s employees (including the Intervenor’s superior) (hereinafter “Disciplinary ground”). On August 26, 2011, the Intervenor distributed and kept printed materials (hereinafter “the printed materials”) within the workplace without the Plaintiff’s approval on August 26, 201, on the ground that Article 41 subparag. 1 through 4, and 15, etc. of the Rules of Employment were subject to a disciplinary measure for seven days pursuant to Article 41 subparag. 1 through 4, and 15, etc. of the Rules of Employment (hereinafter “Disciplinary ground”).

(hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”). C.

On January 27, 2012, the Intervenor and the metal labor union filed an application for remedy with C Regional Labor Relations Commission by asserting that the instant disciplinary action constituted an unfair disciplinary action and an unfair labor practice. C Regional Labor Relations Commission received the application for remedy for unfair disciplinary action on March 27, 2012, and dismissed the application for remedy for unfair labor practice.

On April 12, 2012, the Plaintiff, the Intervenor, and the metal labor union were dissatisfied therewith and filed an application for review of unfair suspension from office and unfair labor practices with the National Labor Relations Commission by 2012Da393, and the National Labor Relations Commission on July 9, 2012.