1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit include the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. On February 12, 2005, Plaintiff A (D) was employed by and succeeded to the Intervenor on February 10, 2016 and continued to work as a literature collection agent and a shop member on December 31, 2017 while he/she became a person whose employment relationship is terminated upon the arrival of retirement age on December 31, 2017.

Plaintiff

B A trade union (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff union") is a trade union established on March 9, 2009 on the organization of workers, excluding public officials employed by public institutions, and workers employed indirectly by public institutions.

An intervenor is a corporation that engages in the collection and transportation business of domestic wastes in south-gu, Busan, using 73 full-time workers after establishing a comprehensive transfer of corporation E on October 2016.

B. On December 28, 2017, Plaintiff A received ipso facto notice from the Intervenor on December 31, 2017 following the arrival of retirement age and the refusal to re-employment on commission service (hereinafter “instant notice of retirement”).

C. On February 5, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed an application for remedy on the ground that the instant retirement notice to the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission constitutes unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices.

Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision to dismiss the plaintiffs' petition for remedy on April 10, 2018.

(hereinafter referred to as “the first inquiry court of this case”).

On May 10, 2018, the Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the instant initial inquiry tribunal and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission (centrally 2018, 520, 537/Nonno71 consolidation), but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for reexamination on July 20, 2018 (hereinafter “instant decision for reexamination”), and the original copy of the said decision for reexamination reached the Plaintiffs on August 14, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

(a) Considering the Intervenor’s 2017 collective agreement Article 10 of the Intervenor’s 2017 and the former service provider E’s re-employment practices, the Plaintiff is entitled to legitimate expectations of re-employment in the commissioning position.