1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The National Labor Relations Commission on February 16, 2016, Plaintiff A Co., Ltd. and the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the decision by reexamination are the same as the reasons under Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

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

A. The summary of the plaintiffs' assertion 1) The employer of the plaintiffs' assertion is entitled to pay wages to the time-off worker who exceeds the prescribed working hours by granting them the limit of time-off, and it is difficult to view that the level of wages paid by the plaintiff company to the plaintiff Eul is excessive to the extent acceptable by social norms compared to the level of ordinary workers' wages. Therefore, the payment of wages, etc. to the plaintiff Eul by the plaintiff company cannot be deemed to constitute unfair labor practices. Accordingly, the decision of the retrial in this case is unlawful. 2) The payment of wages to the plaintiff company to the plaintiff Eul constitutes an act of paying wages to the union worker under Article 24 (2) of the Trade Union Act, even if it is deemed that the payment of wages to the plaintiff company to the plaintiff Eul constitutes an act of paying wages to the union worker under Article 24 (4) of the Trade Union Act to the union worker who is prohibited by Article 24 (2) of the Trade Union Act. This constitutes unfair labor practices under Article 81 (4)

C. In addition, the Plaintiff Company gives the Plaintiff’s branch the limit of working hours to the Plaintiff Company, and does not grant it to the Intervenor, and thereby, it has been controlled by the organization or operation of a trade union in violation of the employer’s neutrality obligations, which constitutes unfair labor practices under Article 81 subparag.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is as follows, and the judgment of the court of first instance is not accepted.