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 judgment of the court of first instance, which cited this case, is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following, thereby citing this in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of

2. The following shall be added to the 10th column of the 10th column of the part added to the judgment of the court of first instance, which is the 6th page of the 10th column.

[Plaintiff dismissed Ha on February 19, 2014 as a disciplinary cause for the intra-company assault case, and the Seoul Central District Court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on January 16, 2015 (Seoul Central District Court 2014Gahap22937) (Seoul Central District Court 2015Na5202), and the above judgment became final and conclusive on February 1, 2016 (Supreme Court 2015Da62487) through the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2015Da62487) and the final appeal (Supreme Court 2016).] The following is added to the 12th sentence of the judgment of the first instance.

(1) The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that, inasmuch as the Plaintiff agreed on the method of preparing the minutes on October 22, 2014 and agreed on some of the provisions on safety, health, accident compensation, etc. on November 10, 2014, at least a certain period of time, it does not constitute a bona fide negotiation. However, in light of the various circumstances known in the record, the Plaintiff left without permission when the Plaintiff unilaterally demanded the Plaintiff to accept the draft collective agreement at the negotiation place on September 17, 2014, and immediately left the place without permission, and the Intervenor immediately left the place of active response, such as requesting the former North Regional Labor Relations Commission to make an application for remedy, etc., and the Plaintiff’s agreement on some of the above matters was reached, and as a whole, it is difficult to view that there was a substantial progress in collective bargaining during the pertinent period through changes in the Plaintiff’s attitude as a whole, the

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion shall be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff's claim is without merit.

The judgment of the first instance is consistent with this conclusion.