1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit (including the part resulting from the supplementary participation) are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Causes and contents of the decision in the retrial;

A. Plaintiff A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is a company that runs urban bus transportation business established on March 29, 1971 and established on March 29, 1971.

Plaintiff

The B branch of the Korea Automobile and Automobile Workers' Union B (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff branch") is a trade union organized for the workers of the plaintiff company.

Plaintiff

C as the head of the Plaintiff’s branch office, is an employee designated as the target of time-off (hereinafter referred to as “time-off worker”).

B. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) is an industrial trade union organized for workers engaged in the public, transportation, and social service sector, and has a sub-chapters under its control.

C. On August 20, 2015, the Intervenor asserted that “the payment of wages by the Plaintiff Company to the Plaintiff C in excess of the limit of exemption from 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”),” and filed an application for remedy. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the Intervenor’s application for remedy on October 23, 2015.

Plaintiff

On November 27, 2015, the company appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on November 27, 2015, and the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for reexamination on February 16, 2016 on the ground that “the Plaintiff Company paid Plaintiff C wages to 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 goes beyond the scope of Article 24(4) of the Trade Union Act as permitted under Article 8

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The employer of the plaintiff's assertion may pay the person who is exempted from working hours wages equivalent to working hours in excess of the prescribed working hours.