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. Facts that there is no dispute over the details of the decision in a retrial [based for recognition], entries in Gap's evidence 1, 2, 5, 6, Eul's evidence 1, Eul's evidence 1, and the purport of whole pleadings;

A. On May 24, 200, the Plaintiff established a F agency of E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) (hereinafter “instant agency”) and runs a motor vehicle sales business.

D entered into a car sales service contract with the Plaintiff on July 1, 2015, and thereafter, the instant agency entered into the car masters (a car dealer entering into a car sales service contract with the automobile sales agent, and a car masters carrying out the duties of automobile sales and receipts, claims management, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “car masters”).

B. The intervenor in the first instance is a national trade union that covers the car masters who work at the nationwide car sales agencies.

On September 18, 2015, the intervenor in the first instance court was issued a trade union establishment report to the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Agency on September 18, 2015.

D was admitted to the Intervenor at the first instance trial around October 2015.

On May 21, 2016, the first instance trial intervenor decided to make a structural change under the Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor, and on June 5, 2018, the Defendant’s Intervenor approved the organizational accession of the first instance trial intervenor.

C. On July 18, 2017, the Intervenor of the first instance trial and D asserted that the Plaintiff’s use of the withdrawal of the Intervenor of the first instance trial to D constitutes an unfair labor practice by intervention and intervention under Article 81 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “Trade Union Act”) and that the Plaintiff’s exclusion of D from D from work on duty constitutes unfair labor practices by disadvantageous treatment under Article 81 subparag. 1 of the Trade Union Act, and filed an application for remedy with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission as 2017No49.

On November 15, 2017, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission recognized the status of workers under the Trade Union Act to the car masters D of the instant agency as follows. In this regard, the Plaintiff’s refusal to withdraw from the Intervenor of the first instance court against the Intervenor of the first instance court.