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 two hundred regular workers employed.

Plaintiff

The Chapter B of the Korean Automobile Trade Union B (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff Branch”) is a trade union organized for the workers of the Plaintiff Company and D Co., Ltd. (which is separated from the Plaintiff Company on January 1, 2014), and the Plaintiff C is the head of the Plaintiff Branch and is an employee designated as the subject of the time-off (hereinafter referred to as “time-off worker”).

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 2, 2015, the first inquiry tribunal asserted that the payment of wages by the Plaintiff Company to the Plaintiff C, the head of the Plaintiff’s branch, in excess of the limit of the exemption of working hours constitutes 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. 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. However, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff Company’s payment of wages to Plaintiff C as the full-time officer of the labor union prohibited by Article 24(2) of the Trade Union Act, and even if such payment is considered as wages for those exempt from working hours, it exceeded the scope permitted under Article 81 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union Act.

(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.