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 court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and this case is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case of dismissal as set forth below

(Other, the grounds alleged by the Plaintiff in the appeal do not differ significantly from the contents alleged by the Plaintiff in the first instance court, and even if all of the evidence presented by the first instance court and this court were examined, the findings of fact and the judgment of the first instance court that rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion are justifiable). 2. The second to the 15th to the 18th (the first part) of the first instance judgment was dismissed as follows.

The Intervenor in the first instance trial is a national trade union at which the car masters serving as a nationwide automobile sales agency is organized. On September 18, 2015, the Intervenor in the first instance trial was issued a trade union establishment report to the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Agency on the establishment of the trade union. D was admitted to the Intervenor in the first instance trial around October 2015. On May 21, 2016, the Intervenor decided to make a structural change under the Intervenor’s jurisdiction. On June 5, 2018, the Intervenor approved the organization entry of the Intervenor in the first instance trial on the second instance judgment of the first instance trial; the second instance judgment of the first instance court was 3: 4,9,13,14, 15, 17, 18, 19; 4, 6, 727, and 27, respectively; and each of the intervenors appears to have used the same as the Intervenor in the second instance judgment of the first instance trial through 315,17,17.

(The circumstances, such as the fact that the sequence on duty set by the Plaintiff could have freely changed according to the agreement of the car masters of this case, do not affect the aforementioned judgment). The 30th day of the first instance judgment of this case to 19 through 20th day of the 19th day of the 19th day of the 19th day of the 19th day of the 20th day of the 2