1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall include costs resulting from the participation.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that runs a bus transport business with approximately 410 regular workers employed.

Plaintiff

The branches A of the Korean Automobile Trade Union BF BF (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff Branch”) are labor unions organized for the workers of the Plaintiff Company, and the Plaintiff C is the head of the Plaintiff Branch, who is designated as the worker subject to the exemption of working hours (hereinafter referred to as “working hours exempted”).

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 August 20, 2015, the first inquiry tribunal asserted that the Plaintiff Company paid excessive benefits to the Plaintiff C, the head of the Plaintiff’s branch, in excess of the limit of the exemption of working hours, constituted 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 on August 20, 2015. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the Intervenor’s request for remedy on November

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 the “instant decision on reexamination”). 【Ground of recognition】 There is no dispute, entry in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

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

A. The employer claiming the plaintiffs shall pay the amount of wages equivalent to the working hours exceeding the prescribed working hours to the time-exempt person.