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.

I. Details and details of the retrial ruling;

A. On July 1, 1999, the Plaintiff is a person who established a funeral sales agency of E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) (hereinafter “instant agency”) and runs a motor vehicle sales business until now.

B. The Defendant Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) refers to the Plaintiff’s assistant sales agent who works at the nationwide automobile sales agency, and refers to the Plaintiff’s assistant sales agent who entered into a car sales service agreement with the automobile sales agent, and performs the duties of automobile sales and receipts, claims management, etc.

The Plaintiff and the Defendant trade name of the car masters. As such, the Plaintiff and the Defendant trade name the car masters of the car sales agencies are referred to as the car masters. It is a national trade union at which the car masters is organized.

On September 18, 2015, the intervenor received a trade union establishment report from the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Agency on September 18, 2015.

8 persons among the car masters of the instant agency join and work as the intervenor's members.

C. The car masters C and D of the instant agency joined as the Intervenor’s member and participated in the instant agency’s activities, and C around April 1, 2016, and D around May 9, 2016, each Plaintiff was notified of the termination of the car sales service contract.

(hereinafter “instant termination of the contract”). D.

Accordingly, on July 5, 2016, the Intervenor CD filed an application for remedy with the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission for unfair labor practices by asserting that “the termination of the instant contract constitutes unfair labor practices such as disadvantageous treatment, control, and intervention.”

On September 21, 2016, Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission partially accepted the application for remedy and dismissed the remainder on the ground that “the termination of the contract of this case does not constitute an unfair labor practice in the control and intervention, but constitutes an unfair labor practice in disadvantageous treatment.”

E. On December 3, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Intervenor CD filed an application for reexamination with each Central Labor Relations Commission.

The National Labor Relations Commission shall have jurisdiction over the first inquiry tribunal on February 17, 2017.