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 parties’ status intervenors are corporations that ordinarily employ approximately two hundred workers and run urban bus transportation business, etc.

On May 26, 2012, the Plaintiff is a member of the CFD branch of the CFD (hereinafter referred to as the “instant trade union branch”) of the CFD branch (hereinafter referred to as “instant trade union branch”).

B. The Intervenor’s assignment order 1) On May 26, 2012, the Plaintiff served on the E-line after joining the Intervenor, and served on the F-line from March 1, 2015. (2) On June 22, 2016, the Pyeongtaek-si head requested the Intervenor to include G service in the H-line route operated by the Intervenor for the convenience of citizens based on the opening of the G-line.

On July 1, 2016, the intervenor ordered 11 bus drivers, including the plaintiff on the same day, to dispatch the following contents:

(A) Of the instant order, the part against the Plaintiff in the instant order was issued (hereinafter “instant order”). On June 27, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination of the instant order with the Intervenor on the following: (a) on June 27, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for new announcement of new announcement of the instant order of assignment of the instant order to the Intervenor on the new announcement of the new announcement of the instant order of assignment of the route PH line No. 3, a new announcement of the new announcement of the new assignment of the route PH line No. 1, a new announcement of the new assignment of the route No. 1, a change in assignment of the route No. 1, a change in assignment of the assignment of the route No. 1, a change in the assignment of the route No. 1, a change in the assignment of the route No. 3, a change in the assignment of the headquarters of the route No. h

However, on July 2, 2016, the Intervenor’s Review Committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s motion for review on the ground that the change of service route of bus drivers cannot be subject to review due to the personnel authority’s inherent authority. The Intervenor’s motion for review in the same month.

4. The Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff of this.

4 An intervenor runs the urban bus transportation business on 24 routes using 118 buses as of July 1, 2016.