1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. 1) The intervenor is a company engaged in bus transportation business using 800 full-time workers. 2) The Korea Automobile and Motor Vehicle Trade Union (hereinafter “instant Trade Union”) is a regional unit trade union organized for a branch office and a trade union organized as an employee engaged in transportation business in Gyeonggi-do.

3) On July 27, 2009, the Plaintiff is a person who was employed as a driver in the Intervenor and served as a driver. 4) The Plaintiff is both the Intervenor’s employee and both the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff and the six other parties are union members of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Branch (hereinafter “C Branch”).

B. On October 22, 2013, the Intervenor 1) is to assign E, F, I, and J from the existing bus routes to the 70-2 route (hereinafter “instant placement”).

(2) The Intervenor took disciplinary action against D and six others as follows (hereinafter “Dismissal of D and six others”).

On October 2, 2013, 1D No. 1D on October 2, 2013, 2013, the date of the name dismissal, D 1D on October 2 E, 2013, F on October 3, 2013, October 23, 2013, and H on October 5, 2013, October 5, 2013, H on November 6, 2013, J on November 14, 2013, the Intervenor constituted grounds for dismissal pursuant to Article 55(17) of the Rules of Employment on November 4, 2013 (hereinafter “instant grounds for dismissal”).

(4) On November 11, 2013, the Intervenor notified the Plaintiff that he/she would be present at the personnel committee held on November 11, 2013 (hereinafter “the dismissal of the Plaintiff”). The Intervenor decided dismissal by holding a personnel committee with respect to the Plaintiff and notified the Plaintiff thereof (hereinafter “the dismissal of the Plaintiff”).

C. On January 16, 201, the employer, Plaintiff, and Nonparty 6 of this case filed a request for remedy against unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices. The employer, Plaintiff, and Plaintiff were dismissed against Plaintiff, and dismissal against D et al., were unfair and unfavorable labor practices, and the assignment conversion of this case constitutes unfair labor practices that are disadvantageously treated.