1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and this case is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case of dismissal as set forth below

(2) The judgment of the court of first instance, which rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion, is justifiable even if the Plaintiff’s assertion was examined by both the evidence submitted by the court of first instance and this court, and all of the evidence presented by the court of first instance are examined. 2. The judgment of the court of first instance, which rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion, shall be made as follows. The judgment of the court of first instance 10 to 13 (including part I(b). The judgment of the court of first instance 1) is as follows. The judgment of the court of first instance 2. The judgment of the court of first instance, “the car masters” serving as an automobile sales agent at the nation’s automobile sales agent, refers to the sales agent who concludes a car sales service contract with the automobile sales agent and concludes a car sales service contract,

As the Plaintiff and the first instance trial intervenor habitually use the name of “car masters,” the Plaintiff also refers to the car sales agents of automobile sales agencies as “car masters.” The Plaintiff and the first instance trial intervenor are the national trade unions at which they are organized as “car masters.”

On September 18, 2015, the intervenor in the first instance court was issued a trade union establishment report to the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Agency on September 18, 2015.

The five members of the car masters of the instant agency are participating in the activities of the Intervenor in the first instance trial.

On May 21, 2016, the first instance trial intervenor decided to make a structural change under the Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor, and on June 5, 2018, the Defendant’s Intervenor approved the organizational accession of the first instance trial intervenor.

[2] At the end of the second instance judgment; 3. 1, 6, 7, 15, 16; 10. 2. 15. 29. 4, 7, 19; 31. 30, 31. 25, 26 out of the eight pages of the first instance judgment (20. 8. .) .. 25,26 out of the eight pages of the first instance judgment (20. ...).