1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all the Plaintiff.

An intervenor in the process of the retrial decision is a corporation that engages in the manufacturing of motor vehicles and parts in various factories, such as Changwon and Gunsan, using 17,00 full-time workers.

On September 1, 1991, the Plaintiff was a person who was employed by the Intervenor and was employed as a technical master in B factory C, and was elected as the 7th City Council member in the local election implemented on June 4, 2014 (term of office: from July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2018).

On July 1, 2014, an intervenor issued an order of temporary retirement (hereinafter “instant temporary retirement order”) to the Plaintiff from July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2018.

The Plaintiff filed a request for remedy with the Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission by asserting that the instant temporary retirement disposition is unfair, but the Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the above request for remedy on November 26, 2014 on the ground that “the instant temporary retirement disposition cannot be deemed to have abused the Intervenor’s legitimate right to personnel.”

On March 20, 2015, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for reexamination on the same ground as the Ginam Regional Labor Relations Commission, which was filed with the National Labor Relations Commission.

(hereinafter “instant decision on reexamination” (hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). 【No dispute exists; Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including serial numbers); the overall purport of the instant decision on reexamination is legitimate; and the Plaintiff’s disposition on temporary retirement is in violation of Article 10 of the Labor Standards Act guaranteeing the workers’ exercise of their public rights; and is in violation of the grounds and procedures for temporary retirement under Article 43 of the collective agreement.

The “Korean IM’s policy on the temporary retirement of public office” cited by the Intervenor as the ground for the instant temporary retirement disposition in the instant case is merely the Intervenor’s internal policy, not deemed the rules of employment. Even if it is a rules of employment, it is invalid that the rules of employment were modified disadvantageously without agreement with the trade union, or that it was in violation of Article 10 of the Labor Standards Act.