1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit (including the part resulting from the supplementary participation) are assessed against the plaintiffs.

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

A. Plaintiff A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is a company that runs urban bus transportation business established on May 26, 1971 and established on May 26, 1971.

Plaintiff

The A branch of the Korea Automobile and Automobile Workers' Union A (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff branch") is a trade union organized for the workers of the plaintiff company.

B as the head of the Plaintiff’s branch office, is an employee designated as the target of time-off (hereinafter referred to as “time-off worker”).

B. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) is an industrial trade union organized for workers engaged in public, transportation, and social service, and has a branch office under its control.

C. On August 20, 2015, the Intervenor asserted that “the payment of wages to the Plaintiff Company B in excess of the limit of exemption from working hours constitutes unfair labor practices by security guards under the main sentence of Article 81 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “Trade Union Act”),” and filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the Intervenor’s application for remedy on October 14, 2015.

Plaintiff

On November 17, 2015, the Company appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission. On February 16, 2016, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff Company’s application for reexamination on the ground that “The Plaintiff Company paid B wages to B as the full-time officer of a trade union which is prohibited by Article 24(2) of the Trade Union Act, and even if this is considered as wages for those exempt from working hours, it is excessive beyond the scope of Article 24(4) of the Trade Union Act as permitted under Article 81 subparag. 4

(hereinafter “instant decision on reexamination”). 【No dispute exists concerning the grounds for recognition, entry of Gap evidence 1-3 and the purport of the entire pleadings.”

2. The employer of the Plaintiff’s assertion falls under the working hours exceeding the prescribed working hours.