1. On December 10, 2012, the Central Labor Relations Commission’s dismissal between the Plaintiffs and the Intervenor joining the Defendant is unfair.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) is a company with more than 7,00 full-time workers for the purpose of manufacturing, selling, and leasing electric machinery, tools, parts, and materials thereof. The Plaintiff A entered the Intervenor on March 30, 2006; and the Plaintiff B, September 2, 2004, entered each of the intervenors and worked as a production worker (referring to a product of slurry and liquid mixtures, or a product of liquid, or a product of liquid, distributed in the form of slurry, and a product of slurry and liquid, before slurling after the completion of the process of mixing materials for common and sound materials.).

B. On July 2, 2012, the Intervenor held a disciplinary committee against the Plaintiffs on July 2, 2012, the Intervenor decided to punish the Plaintiffs by applying Article 52 subparag. 1, 4, 11, 17, 26, and Article 53 subparag. 14, 21, and 23 of the Intervenor’s Rules of Employment with respect to the disciplinary reasons for “for several years, the Plaintiffs neglected to perform their duties by gambling inside and outside of the company, thereby impairing the order of the company” (hereinafter “instant disciplinary grounds”). On the same day, the Intervenor notified the Plaintiffs of the dismissal (hereinafter “instant dismissal”).

C. On July 11, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed an application for remedy against unfair dismissal against the instant dismissal with the Chungcheongnamnam Regional Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “ Chungcheongnamnam Labor Relations Commission”), and on August 28, 2012, the Chungcheongnamnam Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ application for remedy on the ground that “the grounds for disciplinary action are recognized and the disciplinary action is appropriate” (hereinafter referred to as “the first trial court of this case”).

On September 10, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed an application for reexamination of the first inquiry tribunal of this case with the National Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “China”) (central 2012da960), and on December 10, 2012, the Central Labor Relations Commission dismissed the said application for reexamination on the same grounds as the first inquiry tribunal of this case.