1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a branch of the sports district and motor vehicle trade union, which is a unit trade union under the Korean Motor Vehicle Trade Union Federation. It is composed of workers who operate the vehicles belonging to D Co., Ltd., and the plaintiffs are the members of the defendant.

B. On April 12, 2004, the Defendant: (a) announced the convening of a temporary representative meeting; (b) held a temporary representative meeting on April 19, 2004; (c) passed a resolution with the consent of 19 persons among 23 registered representatives present at the meeting, 23 representatives present at the meeting, and 23 representatives present at the meeting (hereinafter “instant amendment of the instant regulations”); and (d) the main contents of the amendment are as follows.

(1) As to the functions of the General Assembly, a representative meeting shall be substituted by the General Assembly, and the provisions concerning the functions of the General Assembly shall apply mutatis mutandis to the Representatives, and the resolution of the Representatives shall be deemed to have the same effect as that adopted by the General

With respect to the appointment of officers, it was possible to elect the head of the branch through the indirect election of representatives by revising that the election was made by the attendance of a majority of the incumbent members or incumbent representatives and with the concurrent vote of a majority of the number of those present.

C. The Defendant held a conference on May 21, 2016, and elected E as the head of the instant branch (hereinafter “election for the head of the instant branch”) with the consent of all 29 representatives present and with the consent of all 29 representatives present.

2. On April 19, 2004, the amendment of the instant regulations to the effect that the election of the head of a branch, which is stipulated as the inherent authority of the general meeting, was in violation of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “Trade Union Act”) and the Defendant’s regulations, as follows.