1. All of the petition for retrial of this case is dismissed.

2. The cost of review shall include the part resulting from the intervention.

1. The following facts, which have become final and conclusive in the judgment subject to review, do not conflict between the parties or are apparent in records.

According to Article 30 (1) of the Rules of Employment for Executive Members, the Plaintiffs and the designated parties were employed by the Intervenor Company as a company engaging in the manufacture and sale of automobiles, and were employed by the captain or director of the division. The Intervenor Company was enacted as of July 1, 2004, and was subject to a full-time retirement order (hereinafter “instant personnel order”) as of December 31, 2013, pursuant to Article 30 (1) of the Rules of Employment for Executive Members, which applies to the employees of at least the researcher in research service, and the employees of at least the production director (hereinafter “inter-members”).

On the other hand, the Intervenor Company has the P Trade Union D branch (hereinafter “Nonindicted Trade Union”) and the PTrade Union D General Service Branch (hereinafter “instant Trade Union”). The Plaintiffs and the designated parties joined the instant Trade Union around March 2013.

B. On March 24, 2014, the Plaintiffs and the designated parties filed an application for remedy against unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices with the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission as Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission No. 2014, Jan. 1, 2014. However, the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for remedy on June 11, 2014.

C. On July 4, 2014, the Plaintiffs and the designated parties were dissatisfied with the aforementioned initial inquiry tribunal at the National Labor Relations Commission, and filed an application for reexamination under Section 685/Reno-no-no-104, but the National Labor Relations Commission, on September 12, 2014, rendered a decision dismissing the said application for reexamination.

(hereinafter “instant decision on review”) D.

The Plaintiffs and the designated parties filed a lawsuit against the Defendant (the Defendant, hereinafter “Defendant”) seeking the revocation of the instant decision on reexamination as Seoul Administrative Court 2014Guhap18091. The Seoul Administrative Court, the first instance court, applied the collective agreement concluded in 2014 between the Intervenor Company and the Nonparty Trade Union to the Plaintiffs and the designated parties and extended their retirement age on two occasions, as alleged by the Plaintiff.