1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The motion for intervention of the Intervenor joining the Defendant is dismissed.

3. The appeal costs are assessed against the Plaintiff.

According to the testimony and the overall purport of each of the testimony and arguments of the witnesses AD and AA at the trial of the lower court ex officio as to the motion for intervention of the Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s motion for intervention, the Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) may recognize the fact that he/she decided to dissolve the Intervenor’s motion for intervention with the entire voting of its members at the extraordinary general meeting on June 20, 2018

According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view that the Intervenor’s Intervenor was dissolved on June 20, 2018 and extinguished.

Therefore, the Intervenor’s motion to intervene in the Intervenor was illegal as it was filed by the extinguished non-corporate body.

I would like to say.

A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) is established on April 21, 1998, as the parties to the decision of review on the Plaintiff’s request, and is engaged in the manufacturing business of co-production and industrial machinery using 260 full-time workers.

On February 8, 2001, the Plaintiff is a nationwide industrial trade union established with the organization of workers engaged in a nationwide metal business.

The Plaintiff, a superior organization, has a National Federation of Democratic Trade Unions (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff Branch”), and has established on March 25, 2015, a branch of the instant company (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff Branch”), which is organized by the employees belonging to the instant company.

An intervenor was established on April 8, 2015 for workers working in the company of this case and did not join a superior organization as a trade union.

On January 3, 2017, an intervenor, such as the procedures for simplification of bargaining windows, demanded the instant company to conduct collective bargaining. On the same day, the instant company, including the fact of the said request for bargaining, announced that the trade union which wants to negotiate, other than the Intervenor, would request the instant company to negotiate by January 10, 2017 (hereinafter “public announcement of the request for bargaining”).

On January 10, 2017, the Plaintiff demanded the instant company to negotiate, and the instant company confirmed the trade union that requested the negotiations on January 11, 2017.