1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The term "car masters" refers to the car masters who entered into a car sales service contract with the owner of a car sales agency and entered into an automobile sales service contract with the owner of a car and conducts automobile sales and collection of automobiles, claims management, etc., by establishing a D sales agency (hereinafter referred to as "C") on January 3, 200.

17. A person who runs a motor vehicle sales business with more than 17 persons.

B. The Intervenor is a national-level industrial trade union that is comprised of “car masters” serving at the nationwide automobile sales agencies. The Intervenor was issued a trade union establishment report to the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Office on September 18, 2015, and was issued a trade union establishment report on September 18, 2015. On May 30, 2018, the Intervenor became the E branch of the B trade union. The Intervenor was established, and part of the car masters belonging to the instant agency is admitted as its members.

C. On October 18, 2018, the Intervenor requested the Plaintiff to conduct collective bargaining in writing in accordance with the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “Trade Union Act”) and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and urged the Plaintiff to re-announce the fact of requesting bargaining over several occasions between October 22, 2018 and November 2, 2018.

On November 1, 2018, an intervenor asserted that the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission refused collective bargaining without good cause, and filed an application for remedy for unfair labor practices.

On December 24, 2018, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a first inquiry court citing an intervenor’s request for remedy on the ground that “The car masters of the instant agency, a member of the Intervenor, constitutes a worker under the Trade Union Act, and thus, the Plaintiff’s refusal of collective bargaining by the Intervenor constitutes unfair labor practices on the ground that there is no justifiable reason to reject collective bargaining

Gyeonggi-do 2018 Subno79-81 Joints. E

The plaintiff is therefore entitled.