1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit include the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that runs a bus transport business with approximately five hundred regular workers employed.

Plaintiff

A branch of the Korean Automobile Trade Union (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff branch”) and A branch of the Plaintiff Company (hereinafter referred to as the “instant branch”) are labor unions organized for the workers of the Plaintiff Company. Plaintiff B is the head of the Plaintiff branch, and Plaintiff C is the head of the instant branch, which is the head of the instant branch, and workers designated as those entitled to the exemption of working hours (hereinafter referred to as the “workers exempted from working hours”).

An intervenor has a branch office under the industrial trade union organized for workers engaged in the public transportation and social service business.

B. On September 3, 2015, the first inquiry tribunal asserted that the payment of wages by the Plaintiff Company to Plaintiff B and C in excess of the limit of the exemption of working hours constituted 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”). The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, and the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the Intervenor’s application for remedy on November 2, 2015.

C. On February 16, 2016, the Plaintiff Company dissatisfied with the initial inquiry tribunal and applied for reexamination to the National Labor Relations Commission, but the National Labor Relations Commission paid the Plaintiff Company’s wages to Plaintiff B and C as the full-time officer of the labor union prohibited by Article 24(2) of the Trade Union Act, and even if such wages were to be paid to the time-off workers, it was dismissed on the ground that it exceeded the scope permitted under Article 81 subparag. 4 of the

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision by reexamination”). [This case’s ground for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entries in Gap’s 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion 1 employer work hours.