1. Defendant 1, 3, 5, 6, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 22, 24, 27, 29, 30, 36, 48, 49, 52, 53, 60, 63, 66, 72, 73, 77, 78, 88, 90

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is a corporation that runs the automobile manufacturing business, etc., and the defendants are employees of the subcontractor that entered into a contract with the plaintiff.

B. While the Plaintiff’s intra-company subcontractor trade union, to which the Defendants belonged, requested the Plaintiff to the effect that all workers belonging to the subordinate labor union should be converted into regular workers, Nonparty B, who are the workers belonging to the said labor union, would not become a party to the bargaining, on July 22, 2010, in the case of the cancellation of the decision on dismissal of unfair labor practices and remedy for unfair labor practices, which was rendered by the lower court (Supreme Court Decision 2008Du4367, July 22, 2010) that “the Plaintiff would be deemed to have been directly employed by the Plaintiff in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes because he/she was dispatched workers for two or more years,” the Plaintiff requested a special bargaining to the effect that the increase of wages and the conversion of all workers working at the subordinate labor union into full-time workers of the said company. However, the Plaintiff refused such a demand to the effect that the bargaining workers belonging to the subordinate labor union cannot become a party to the bargaining

C. Accordingly, on November 5, 2010, the subordinate labor union applied for mediation to the National Labor Relations Commission through metal labor unions, held a temporary representative meeting on November 8, 2010 and passed a resolution on the occurrence of the dispute, and formed a committee for the countermeasures against the dispute. On November 12, 2010, the Labor Relations Commission held a general meeting of partners and passed a resolution on the industrial action at the rate of 76.34%.

However, with respect to an application for mediation filed by the Labor Relations Commission with the Plaintiff as the employer in the name of metal labor union as of November 15, 2010 as of No. 2010, the National Labor Relations Commission recognized that the case of the application for mediation of the labor dispute cannot be readily concluded to have a direct employment relationship between the Plaintiff and the employees belonging to the affiliated subcontractor and the Plaintiff as the party, and thus, it is not subject to mediation under the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act.

The Claimant is otherwise appropriate under the Labor Relations Act.