1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall include costs resulting from the participation.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that runs a bus transport business with approximately 230 regular workers employed.

Plaintiff

The branches A of the Korean Automobile and Automobile Trade Union A (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff Branch”) are labor unions organized for the workers of the Plaintiff Company, and the Plaintiff B is the head of the Plaintiff Branch, who is designated as the worker eligible for 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 August 20, 2015, the first inquiry tribunal asserted that the Plaintiff Company paid excessive benefits to Plaintiff B, the head of the Plaintiff’s branch, 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 Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission on August 20, 2015. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the Intervenor’s request for remedy on November 2

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 the Plaintiff Company 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 Plaintiff Company exempted from working hours, it dismissed the same on the ground that it exceeded the permissible scope under Article 81 subparag.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant decision on reexamination”). 【Ground of recognition】 There is no dispute, entry in Gap’s evidence Nos. 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 constitutes work hours exceeding contractual work hours.