1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff is a corporation that employs 200 full-time workers and operates urban bus transportation business, etc., the intervenor A is a participant A, the intervenor B is a participant B, July 14, 2006, and the intervenor C is a person who is employed by each plaintiff company on November 23, 2009 and serves as an urban bus driver.

On November 21, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for disciplinary action against the Intervenor A against “A was absent without permission on November 12, 2014”; two days of suspension from office against the Intervenor A; five days of suspension from office against the Intervenor “A was absent without permission on November 17, 2014”; and on December 9, 2014, the ground for disciplinary action against the Intervenor “B was absent without permission on November 17, 2014; the Intervenor filed an application for reexamination against the Intervenor B on December 14, 2014; the Intervenor filed an application for reexamination against the Plaintiff on December 14, 2014 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each disciplinary action taken against the Intervenor A”); but the Intervenor filed an application for reexamination against the Intervenor A’s respective disciplinary action against the Intervenor C on December 14, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “each disciplinary action taken against the Plaintiff”).

On February 3, 2015, the Intervenor and the instant trade union asserted that each of the instant disciplinary actions constituted an unfair disciplinary action and unfair labor practice, and filed an application for remedy with the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission. On April 6, 2015, the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for remedy by the Intervenor and the instant trade union on the ground that absence from work on the grounds of “the absence from work on April 6, 2015” constitutes grounds for disciplinary action. There is no defect in the determination and procedural aspect, and there is no lack of recognition of the Plaintiff’s intent to engage in unfair labor practice.

The Intervenor and the instant trade union, who were dissatisfied with this, filed an application for review with the National Labor Relations Commission on May 7, 2015, and the National Labor Relations Commission applied for a holiday on July 31, 2015 for the Intervenor’s application for a holiday on the basis of annual leave.