1. The Intervenor’s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are borne by the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

purport.

1. The grounds alleged by the intervenor in the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the contents alleged in the court of first instance while the intervenor appealeds the court of first instance, and the facts established and determined in the court of first instance and the whole purport of evidence and arguments submitted to this court are recognized as legitimate.

Therefore, the reasoning of this court is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or supplement of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this court shall accept it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article

2. In the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, "net profit of 2010" in the 6th page of the judgment of the court of first instance has been written by adding "56.7 billion won" to "56.8 billion won".

No. 7 of the first instance judgment, the 18th class "16 days" shall be applied to "22 days".

On October 12, 2016, the Seoul High Court (Seoul High Court 2016Na2027113) rendered a judgment dismissing the Intervenor’s appeal on October 12, 2016 (2016Na2027113), which held that the Intervenor filed an appeal and that the Intervenor is still pending in the final appeal (Supreme Court 2016Da265641). The Intervenor filed an appeal and the final appeal is currently pending in the final appeal (Supreme Court 2016Da265641).

3. The supplementary decision intervenor asserts to the effect that the employer’s disciplinary action does not constitute an unfair labor practice, insofar as there are some grounds for disciplinary action against the worker, the establishment of the employer’s unfair labor practice is denied, and the adequacy of disciplinary action and the issue of disciplinary action are matters to be considered in the determination of legitimacy of disciplinary action itself, and does not affect the establishment of unfair labor practice.

However, when an employer takes a disciplinary measure, such as dismissal, against a worker, it is considered that the employer actually takes a disciplinary measure on the ground of the worker's legitimate trade union activity, unlike the grounds for disciplinary measure.