1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. On August 1, 2006, the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) was a corporation that is engaged in taxi transport business with approximately sixty regular workers, and the Plaintiff was employed by the Intervenor as a taxi driver on August 1, 2006.

The plaintiff was the only member of the B-Subdivision (hereinafter referred to as the "instant trade union") for the plaintiff's workers among the Korean Democratic Transport and Social Services Trade Union under the Korean Democratic Trade Union Federation, and there was two trade unions (21 members) for which the participant workers belong.

B. In January 2015, the taxi branch of the Korean Public Transport Services Workers’ Union, to which the Plaintiff belongs, requested the intervenors to pay the value-added tax unpaid to the Plaintiff.

Until March 2015, the Plaintiff requested the payment of value-added tax to the intervenors as the head of the taxi branch limited company of the Korea Public Transport and Services Trade Union.

C. On October 27, 2015, the Plaintiff reported the Intervenor’s suspicion of tax evasion to North Korea on his/her behalf.

On December 2, 2015, the Plaintiff reported the Intervenor’s suspicion of tax evasion to the North Mine Tax Office again.

In January 2016, the intervenor paid the reduced value-added tax to the employees.

On October 27, 2016, the North Mine District Office recognized the Plaintiff as a person eligible for a monetary reward and paid the Plaintiff a monetary reward on November 28, 2016.

On January 1, 2016, the Intervenor and the B Trade Union concluded a collective agreement in 2016, which was the effective period from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2017. The content was that the driver’s retirement age was changed from 62 years to 57 years of age.

The Intervenor changed the retirement age from the age of 62 to 57 in January 2016 to the age of 62.

(hereinafter “instant amendment to the Rules of Employment”). E.

The Intervenor is called “instant notice of retirement” on the ground that the Plaintiff becomes retirement age as of July 31, 2016.