1. On September 27, 2012, the National Labor Relations Commission attached to the Plaintiff and the Defendant joining the Defendant, and the CTrade Union attached to the 2012 Supplementary Sea 666/Bno178.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that employs 270 full-time workers and provides urban bus passenger transportation services. C Trade Union (hereinafter “CEU”) is a regional unit trade union affiliated with the headquarters of the DF, the establishment of which was reported on December 3, 2010. The Intervenor joining the Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is a driver of the Plaintiff company, and is a member of the CEU.

B. On February 29, 2012, the end of the month in which the Intervenor reached the age of 58, the Plaintiff dismissed the Intervenor from the retirement age (hereinafter “instant retirement age”), and on March 29, 2012, the Intervenor and CEU issued an application for remedy for unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff did not extend the Intervenor’s retirement age and treated the instant retirement age without extending the Intervenor’s retirement age is an unfair dismissal and disadvantageous labor practices.” On May 24, 2012, the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission issued an order to remedy the Plaintiff’s unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices.

C. On June 21, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on an order for remedy, and the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the following grounds in the case of the application for unfair dismissal and remedy for unfair labor practices committed by the National Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter “National Labor Relations Commission”) committed against the National Labor Relations Commission.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant decision on reexamination”) . 1. The portion of the relevant dismissal is unfair.

A. In order to comply with the provisions of Article 31(2) of the collective agreement concluded between the Plaintiff and a major trade union (hereinafter “A labor union”) that “labor-management consultation” is not a labor-management council under the Act on the Promotion of Workers’ Participation and Cooperation (hereinafter “Labor Participation Act”), but a labor-management agreement concluded on July 15, 201 between the Plaintiff and the C labor union, which entered into on July 15, 201, and Article 31(3) of the Labor-management Agreement that “no discrimination is made on the ground that it is a member of the C labor union.”