1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. On September 12, 2007, the Intervenor was established for the purpose of the business and service business related to telecommunications services, etc. on September 12, 2007, and was employed by approximately 30 full-time workers at the YY C and the second floor, and operated the above purpose business. 2) The D Trade Union (hereinafter “the instant trade union”) is a trade union established on December 11, 2009 and established on December 11, 2009, has its principal office in Eunpyeong-gu, Seoul, and is subject to the organization of workers at all places of business nationwide with the president of the Korean Democratic Trade Union as a superior organization. The Intervenor has the FF branch G branch office.

(3) On January 2, 2011, the Plaintiff joined the Intervenor Company and was in charge of duties related to the Internet and communications. On July 7, 2014, the Plaintiff joined the instant trade union and served as the head of the branch office and the head of the policy department of the instant branch office, and then is in charge of the Policy Director from June 1, 2016. (b) On September 14, 2015, H, the head of the technical team of the Intervenor, was in charge of the Intervenor, who was the head of the technical team of the Plaintiff, made a complaint against the Plaintiff on the part of the Plaintiff during his/her business hours on September 12, 2015, the Plaintiff was in charge of insulting the Gwangju District Prosecutors’ Office, and on December 30, 2015, the head of the relevant branch office of the Gwangju District Prosecutors’ Office issued a fine of KRW 1.5 million against the Plaintiff.

2) On February 18, 2016, the Intervenor notified the Plaintiff on the 24th day of the same month that “as to the conviction under the Acts and subordinate statutes (as to the conviction received on December 30, 2015),” but the Plaintiff did not appear at the Disciplinary Committee on February 24, 2016. On February 24, 2016, the instant trade union demanded that the Intervenor be present at the Plaintiff by setting a period of attendance at the meeting of at least 15 days and that the “judgment of conviction under the Acts and subordinate statutes” was not reasonable due to the grounds for disciplinary action. 3) On February 25, 2016, the Intervenor notified the Plaintiff on February 25, 2016, the Intervenor again related to the Plaintiff’s receipt of the judgment (as to December 30, 2015) under the Acts and subordinate statutes.”