1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a company running urban bus transportation with approximately 120 regular workers, and the Intervenor was employed as a bus driver on March 15, 2002.

B. On April 25, 2016, after deliberation by the Disciplinary Committee, the Plaintiff notified the intervenors that they were dismissed on April 30, 2016 on the grounds of the following grounds for dismissal:

(hereinafter “instant dismissal”). Grounds for dismissal

1. Revocation of a license on May 4, 2015;

2. Where the head of a chapter (person exempted from work hours) fails to submit resources to be reinstated within five days after the end of April 1, 2016.

3. Where reinstatement is impossible due to the lack of a driver's license, although it shall be issued as a worker engaged in occupational work on April 1, 2016;

C. On May 2, 2016, the Intervenor claimed that the instant dismissal constituted unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices at the same time as unfair dismissal, and applied for remedy to the Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission. On July 15, 2016, the Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission issued a remedy order on the ground that the dismissal in the instant case is recognized as the ground for dismissal, but the amount of the determination is excessive, and thus, it did not constitute unfair dismissal. However, the Intervenor dismissed the application for remedy on the ground that the dismissal in the instant case does not constitute unfair labor practices.

The plaintiff and the intervenor appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed all their applications for reexamination on November 29, 2016.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision by reexamination”). 【The ground for recognition” does not dispute the part concerning the relevant dismissal in the said decision by reexamination (hereinafter referred to as “instant decision by reexamination”). The entry of evidence No. 1-59 and evidence No. 21-21, and the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. The plaintiff's assertion that ① the worker on board who drives urban buses must hold a Class 1 driver's license is essential for the bus companies located in Busan, including the plaintiff, to resign the worker on board when the driver's license of the worker on board is revoked.