2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

A. On May 15, 2002, the Plaintiff is a person who signed a motor vehicle sales service contract with a motor vehicle sales agency owner and entered into a motor vehicle sales service contract with a motor vehicle sales agency owner and carries out motor vehicle sales and collection, bond management, etc.

16 persons who operate a motor vehicle sales business with more than 16 persons.

B. The Intervenor is a national-level industrial trade union that is subject to the organization of the “E” working at the nationwide automobile sales agencies. The Intervenor was issued a trade union establishment report to the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Office on September 18, 2015, and was issued a trade union establishment report on September 18, 2015. The Plaintiff was established and two of the instant agencies affiliated with the instant agency members were affiliated with the Plaintiff.

C. On October 18, 2018, the Intervenor requested the Plaintiff to conduct collective bargaining in writing in accordance with the Enforcement Decree of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “Trade Union Act”) and the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, and urged the Plaintiff to make a public announcement of the fact of requesting bargaining on October 22, 2018. The Intervenor sent text messages requesting the public announcement of requesting bargaining on two occasions between October 23, 2018 and October 25, 2018, and sent a written request for prompt implementation of procedures, such as public announcement under the Trade Union Act.

On November 11, 2018, an intervenor asserted that the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission refused collective bargaining without good cause, and filed an application for remedy for unfair labor practices.

The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, on December 31, 2018, refers to “E of the instant agency, a member of the Intervenor, constitutes a worker under the Trade Union Act, and the Plaintiff’s refusal of collective bargaining by the Intervenor constitutes an unfair labor practice on the ground that there is no justifiable reason.”