1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal, including the part arising from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, citing the instant case, is as follows: (a) to change the “Osan-si Branch” under Section 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance to the “Osan-si Branch” and to the “Osan-si Branch” under Section 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) to regard the Plaintiff’s assertion as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (c)

(The grounds alleged by the Plaintiff in the trial while filing an appeal are different depending on the contents as alleged in the first instance court. However, considering the evidence additionally submitted by the Plaintiff in the trial and the witness G of the party hearing, it is not different from the fact-finding and judgment of the first instance court even if considering the testimony of the witness G of the party hearing.)

A. Whether the Defendant violated the scope of review 1) Plaintiff’s assertion by Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter “Seoul Labor Relations Commission”).

(C) On the ground that the Plaintiff’s refusal to negotiate was an unfair labor practice on the ground that C is not an employer, and that the request for submission of a membership list was not justifiable, the Plaintiff’s refusal to negotiate was determined as an unfair labor practice, but

In addition, there is no restriction on the number of negotiating members under the Trade Union Act and relevant statutes, and therefore, the plaintiff's refusal of collective bargaining constitutes unfair labor practices. This is against Article 89 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules that "the application for reexamination by a party shall not exceed the scope of the application made by the first instance court, and the deliberation and decision by the middle-aged shall be within the scope of the objection filed by the party concerned." 2) According to each of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules, in this case, the plaintiff's refusal and refusal of bargaining with the intervenor in this case constitutes unfair labor practices, as alleged by the plaintiff, it is recognized that there is a part of the Seoul Central Labor Relations Commission's decision on whether the refusal and refusal of bargaining with the intervenor constitutes unfair labor practices