1. The request for retrial of this case is dismissed.

2. The cost of review shall include the part resulting from the intervention.

1. The following facts, which became final and conclusive in the judgment subject to review, do not conflict between the parties or are apparent in the records.

On July 1, 2004, the Plaintiffs were issued an order to appoint each retirement officer (hereinafter “instant order”) pursuant to Article 30 subparag. 1 of the Rules of Employment for the Executive Members, who were enacted to be subject to at least the director in general service, at least the researcher in research service, at least the production researcher, and at least the production captain (hereinafter “inter-members”) from the Intervenor on December 31, 2013.

Meanwhile, the Intervenor has the branch E of the F Trade Union (hereinafter “Nonindicted Trade Union”) and the F Trade Union G Branch (hereinafter “instant trade union”). The Plaintiffs joined the instant trade union between March and May 2013.

B. Plaintiff A, C, and D applied for remedy against unfair dismissal to the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission on March 10, 2014, and applied for remedy against unfair labor practices on March 24, 2014, but the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed each of the above applications on May 15, 2014.

Plaintiff

B applied for remedy against unfair dismissal to the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission on March 10, 2014, and applied for remedy against unfair labor practices on March 24, 2014, but the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the respective request for remedy from Plaintiff B on June 9, 2014.

C. Plaintiff A, C, and D filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on June 2, 2014, and Plaintiff B, July 2, 2014, against each initial trial decision, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiffs’ application for reexamination on August 8, 2014.

(hereinafter “instant decision on review”) D.

The Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the Defendant (the Defendant for retrial; hereinafter “Defendant”) seeking the revocation of the instant decision on reexamination as Seoul Administrative Court 2014Guhap16170.

However, on October 22, 2015, the above court's rules of employment of executive members, which provide for the retirement age of executive members, is valid, and the letter of personnel appointment in this case is valid.