1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including those resulting from the participation, shall be all included.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that runs a bus transport business with approximately five hundred regular workers employed.

Plaintiff

The branches A of the Korean Automobile and Automobile Trade Union A (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff Branch”) are labor unions organized for the workers of the Plaintiff Company, and the Plaintiff B is the head of the Plaintiff Branch, who is designated as the worker eligible for the exemption of working hours (hereinafter referred to as the “workers exempted from working hours”).

An intervenor has a middle-traffic branch under the industrial trade union organized for workers engaged in the public transportation and social service business.

B. On September 2, 2015, the first inquiry tribunal asserted that the payment of wages by the Plaintiff Company to the Plaintiff Company B, the head of the Plaintiff’s branch, constituted unfair labor practices under the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “Trade Union Act”). The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission on September 2, 2015. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the Intervenor’s request for remedy on November 2, 2015.

C. On February 16, 2016, the Plaintiff Company dissatisfied with the initial inquiry tribunal and applied for reexamination to the National Labor Relations Commission, but the National Labor Relations Commission paid the Plaintiff Company’s wages to the Plaintiff Company as the full-time officer of the labor union prohibited by Article 24(2) of the Trade Union Act, and even if such wages were to be paid to the Plaintiff Company exempted from working hours, it dismissed the same on the ground that it exceeded the permissible scope under Article 81 subparag.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision by reexamination”). [This case’s ground for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entries in Gap’s 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful

A. The employer claiming that the Plaintiffs are entitled to work hours exceeding contractual work hours.