On May 4, 2016, the Plaintiff demanded the Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) to conduct collective bargaining on the “Request for collective bargaining (hereinafter “instant collective bargaining”) in Daejeon Public Officials’ Union-Seoul Metropolitan City” as indicated in attached Table 1 (hereinafter “instant collective bargaining”). However, the Intervenor rejected collective bargaining on the ground that the Intervenor did not have the authority and responsibility to negotiate or conclude agreements with the Plaintiff among the instant collective bargaining matters on June 29, 2016.

(hereinafter “instant refusal of collective bargaining.” Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant refusal of collective bargaining constituted unfair labor practices and filed an application for remedy with the Chungcheongnamnam Regional Labor Relations Commission on July 19, 2016, and on September 8, 2016, Chungcheong Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for remedy by determining that the instant refusal of collective bargaining does not constitute unfair labor practices due to the refusal of collective bargaining and the neglect of collective bargaining.

(J) On October 12, 2016, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the same ground as the first inquiry court on January 6, 2017.

(The plaintiff's assertion as to the legitimacy of the decision on the reexamination of this case as to the legitimacy of the decision on the reexamination of this case as to the facts related to Gap's 1, 2, 6 through 8, Eul's evidence Nos. 1, 1, 2, and 1 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the whole purport of the pleading, has the authority to directly negotiate with the intervenor and conclude a collective agreement with the whole unit trade union belonging to the plaintiff or whole unit trade union, and the intervenor bears the duty of collective bargaining against the plaintiff to such extent.

Of the collective bargaining issues of this case, the Intervenor is in charge.