1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

(b).

The court's explanation of this case by the admitting the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: the 3rd to 9th to 12th to the 3rd to the court of first instance.

2.As described in paragraph (a), the six pages 12 to 16 shall be as follows:

2. 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 as otherwise stated in paragraph (b). As such, the part to be used by the court of first instance is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. The part to be used by the

D. Meanwhile, the Defendants were indicted for the crime of interference with business on November 26, 2014 as the facts charged that the Defendants committed the instant act of interference with business, and were convicted of a fine of KRW 3 million for Defendant A and a fine of KRW 2 million for Defendant B as the Suwon District Court Decision 2014Ma65 on November 26, 2014.

Both Defendants and the Prosecutor appealed, and Defendant A was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years in June and a conviction of 120 hours in community service work, and all appeals on Defendant B were dismissed on November 5, 2015 by Suwon District Court 2014No7620.

The appeal by only Defendant A is pending in the Supreme Court Decision 2015Do18427.

In the first instance judgment, the part 6th to 16th 2th 16th : Provided, That according to the facts acknowledged earlier, the Plaintiff Company offered the representatives of the Korea Metal Trade Union Round branch with two human resources during the first half of July 27, 2012, who agreed to recruit two human resources during the first half of July 2013 and failed to comply with the agreement, thereby allowing the Defendants to take this circumstance into account in calculating the amount of damages to be compensated by the Defendants. However, it is reasonable to consider such circumstance in calculating the amount of damages to be compensated by the Defendants. Accordingly, the Defendants’ liability is limited to the remaining 70%.

Therefore, the defendants are jointly liable to pay 173,508,300 won (=247,869,000 won corresponding to the above high-quality improvement x 70%) to the plaintiff as damages for tort, and the plaintiff is obligated to pay them.