2. The cost of review shall include the part resulting from the intervention.

A. The Plaintiffs and the designated parties were employed by the Intervenor company engaged in the manufacture and sale of automobiles, and were employed by the captain or the director. The Intervenor company was enacted as of July 1, 2004 by the Intervenor company and received an order to pay the retired personnel on December 31, 2013 as of December 31, 2013, pursuant to Article 30 subparagraph 1 of the Rules of Employment for the Executive Officers and Employees, who were employed by the director in general service, higher than the director in research service, higher than the

On the other hand, the Intervenor Company has the P Trade Union D branch (hereinafter “Nonindicted Trade Union”) and the PTrade Union D General Service Branch (hereinafter “instant Trade Union”). The Plaintiffs and the designated parties joined the instant Trade Union around March 2013.

B. On March 24, 2014, the Plaintiffs and the designated parties filed an application for remedy with the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission for unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices under Section 2014, Section 155 and Section 22, but the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed each of the above applications on June 11, 2014.

C. On July 4, 2014, the Plaintiffs and the designated parties were dissatisfied with the aforementioned initial inquiry tribunal at the National Labor Relations Commission and filed an application for reexamination under the Ministry of Labor No. 2014, 685, and the Ministry of Labor, however, on September 12, 2014, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision dismissing the said application for reexamination.

(hereinafter “instant decision on review”) D.

The Plaintiffs and the designated parties filed a lawsuit against the Defendant (the Defendant; hereinafter “Defendant”) seeking the revocation of the instant decision on reexamination as Seoul Administrative Court 2014Guhap18091. The Seoul Administrative Court, the first instance trial, applied the collective agreement concluded in 2014 between the Intervenor Company and the Nonparty Trade Union to the Plaintiffs and the designated parties, even if the retirement age of the Plaintiffs and the designated parties is extended twice, the retirement age of the Plaintiffs and the designated parties reaches December 31, 2015, which is the last day of the year when they reach 60 years of age. The above retirement age of the Plaintiffs and the designated parties is the closing of the argument in this case.