1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Causes and contents of the decision in the retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a public enterprise that was established on December 31, 2004 and employs 28,000 full-time workers and engages in B transportation, B vehicle maintenance, B equipment manufacturing sales, etc.

C (hereinafter referred to as “C”) was established for the organization of workers engaged in the industry B including the Defendant’s Intervenors (hereinafter referred to as “ Intervenors”), and the individual names of the Intervenors (hereinafter referred to as “C”), according to the sequences listed in the list of the Defendant’s Intervenors and Intervenors in Annex 1, and the number of members is about 20,000, and five regional headquarters (Seoul, Daejeon, Permanent Residence, South, and Busan) under its control.

B. The intervenors are union members, including C’s dispute countermeasures committee members, who were employed by the Plaintiff and were active as union members.

The position of the intervenors in Section C shall be as specified in the “labor Organization Obligations” column in attached Form 2.

C. On July 10, 2014, with respect to the Intervenor 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 14, and 15 on the ground that “the Intervenor led or actively participated in the instant strike (hereinafter “instant strike”) conducted on February 25, 2014 by the Intervenor C on the ground that “the Intervenor led or actively participated in the instant strike” on July 11, 2014, the Plaintiff imposed a disciplinary measure of suspension from office or reduction of salary as stated in the attached Form 2 “the details of disciplinary action (Review)”.

(hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”) D.

C and the Intervenor asserted on October 6, 2014 that “this case’s disciplinary action is unfair and constitutes unfair labor practices,” and filed an application for remedy with the Chungcheong Regional Labor Relations Commission.

On January 30, 2015, the Chungcheongnam-nam Regional Labor Relations Commission recognized disciplinary action against the Intervenor on the ground that “the instant strike was an unreasonable industrial action without justification for its purpose,” but the disciplinary action against the Intervenor is excessive, as such disciplinary action against the Intervenor 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 14, 27, 28, and 29 is unfair. The disciplinary action against the Intervenor is justifiable. In addition, the instant disciplinary action against the Intervenor does not constitute unfair labor practice.”