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 Plaintiff is a company that operates bus transportation business with 26 regular workers.

On November 1, 2002, the Intervenor C (hereinafter “ Intervenor C”) joined the Plaintiff Company and served as a bus driver, and the Intervenor B (hereinafter “ Intervenor B”) joined the Plaintiff Company and served as a bus driver on April 25, 201.

B. The Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s trade union (hereinafter “ Intervenor’s trade union”) was established on June 1, 2001 and was established 211 members, and the Gangwon-do Union Trade Union A branch (hereinafter “instant branch”) is established under the said branch.

The Intervenor C and B are members of the instant branch office.

C. On December 11, 2013, the Plaintiff notified 24 employees, including Intervenor C and B, to the effect that “the Plaintiff Company is scheduled to discontinue its business as of December 31, 2013, and thus the labor contract is terminated as of December 31, 2013.”

However, on December 31, 2013, the Plaintiff notified 15 workers, including the Intervenor C and B, who continued to engage in the business without closing the business and received the notification of the said paragraph on January 9, 2014, to the effect that “the closure of the Plaintiff Company is postponed until January 25, 2014, and the notification of the said paragraph is revoked and the labor contract is terminated as of January 25, 2014.”

E. On January 10, 2014, the Plaintiff concluded a labor contract again with the remaining workers other than the Intervenor C and B, among 15 workers who were notified under the above paragraph (d).

However, on January 28, 2014, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor B, and on January 31, 2014, the Intervenor C, respectively, of the termination of the employment relationship (hereinafter “instant notification”), and did not dispatch the Intervenor C and B from February 1, 2014.

F. The Intervenor asserts that the instant notification was unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices, and applied to the Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission for remedy against unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices on February 10, 2014.