2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. The defendant is a public corporation established to efficiently manage and operate facilities and projects designated by the head of Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office on the basis of the Local Public Enterprises Act to contribute to the convenience of the residents' living, the promotion of welfare and the improvement of productivity

The plaintiff was employed by defendant Corporation around 2002.

B. On May 7, 2015, the Ministry of Strategy and Finance issued a recommendation of a public institution wage peak system to introduce the wage peak system to adjust retirement age and wages for employment stability and youth employment.

C. On September 23, 2015, the Defendant held an employee presentation to introduce the wage peak system according to the said recommendation.

From September 24, 2015 to September 25, 2015, the defendant issued pro-con voting for the introduction of the wage peak system and approved the introduction of the wage peak system to 73 of the total number of the employees of the defendant 79(s) with the consent of the introduction of the above(s).

E. On October 29, 2015, the “Yancheon-gu Facilities Management Corporation of the National Public Transport Service Workers’ Union, which is a trade union composed of a majority of the employees of the defendant, agreed to the modification of the articles of association, organization rules, personnel regulations, remuneration regulations, and service regulations, etc.

F. On November 23, 2015, the Defendant: (a) held a board of directors on November 23, 2015 to revise the articles of incorporation, organization rules, personnel management rules, remuneration regulations, and service regulations; and (b)

G. Accordingly, on December 3, 2015, the Defendant’s Service Regulations was newly established “Items 12” of the wage peak system under Chapter XII.

(hereinafter referred to as “the ground for recognition”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The provision of this case, which causes the plaintiff's claim, is ① The defendant's intervention or interference in the process of the introduction of the wage peak system, so it does not follow a legitimate collective decision-making method, and ② is disadvantageous to the plaintiff who reduces wages without any consideration, such as extension of retirement age.