1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, citing the instant case, is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(2) In addition, the Plaintiff’s assertion in the first instance court does not significantly differ from the contents of the Plaintiff’s assertion in the first instance court, and even if all of the evidence submitted in the first instance court and the first instance court were examined, the fact-finding and determination by the first instance court that rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion is justifiable). 【Plaintiff (former D Workers’ Union)” in the second instance judgment of the first instance court is deemed to read “Plaintiff (former D Workers’ Union was “D Workers’ Union at the time of establishment of the following E branch,” but after that, a structural change was made on October 28, 201 in accordance with the resolution by the division of a trade union by headquarters, and the Plaintiff succeeded to all the rights under the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act; hereinafter “Plaintiff” without distinguishing from before and after the structural change.

The 2nd 19th 2nd 19th 19th 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 2nd

On December 27, 2018, the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision to dismiss an application for remedy on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the negotiation requested by the intervenors to the extent that there is no dispute between the parties on the contents of the negotiation (the year and category of negotiation subject to negotiation) and there is no clear standard thereon, and considering the progress of collective bargaining among them and the legislative intent of the procedures for the simplification of bargaining windows prescribed by the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, it cannot be concluded that the failure of the Intervenor

The third three sides of the judgment of the first instance is "for the same reason as the above first inquiry court" and the contents of the negotiation and collective agreement of the representative bargaining trade union which the intervenor raised in the course of negotiating with the plaintiff.