1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit is resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity established on August 11, 200 and ordinarily employs approximately 1,00 workers, who ordinarily engage in Contiguous tourism sales and general travel business. The Intervenor is a trade union established on February 16, 2015 as the name “E Trade Union” for workers engaged in Dwork and C-related industries and related industries, and on April 6, 2015, up to 30 workers belonging to the Plaintiff.

B. On April 21, 2015, the Intervenor demanded the Plaintiff to conduct collective bargaining and to negotiate wages in 2015, but the Plaintiff did not publicly announce the demand.

C. Accordingly, on April 22, 2015, the Intervenor filed an application for correction with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, and the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the Intervenor’s application on May 4, 2015, and rendered a decision that “the Plaintiff recognized the Intervenor’s failure to publicly notify the Intervenor’s demand for negotiations on April 21, 2015, and the Plaintiff announced the fact that the Intervenor requested negotiations at the entire workplace.”

On May 20, 2015, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the above decision and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission. However, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the ground that “the legal trade union is entitled to demand negotiations under the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “Trade Union Act”) on June 1, 2015, and the Plaintiff should have publicly announced the above fact of the request for negotiations for seven days from the date of receiving the Intervenor’s request for negotiations, but it is recognized that the Plaintiff did not publicly announce

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision by reexamination”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

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

A. The plaintiff's assertion is a member of the store, who is an independent business operator, and the substance of the plaintiff's assertion is.