2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The following facts are either disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, and Eul evidence Nos. 6, respectively, by integrating the whole purport of the pleading, and there is no counter-proof.

A. The plaintiff was appointed as a public official in the corresponding list "Date of Appointment" on the relevant date of appointment, and served as an officer (class V at the current class), and on January 1, 1982, the Ministry of Health and Welfare established the defendant corporation to separate only telecommunications services among its duties, and the Minister of Health and Welfare appointed the plaintiffs as an employee of the defendant corporation. Since the transfer of the plaintiffs to the defendant corporation to the defendant corporation, the employees' retirement age under Article 35 (1) of the Regulations on the Personnel Management of the defendant corporation (amended by September 24, 1998) was continuously worked as the employees of the defendant corporation after converting the plaintiffs to the defendant corporation, and the employees' retirement age under Article 35 (1) of the said Regulations was 58 years of age, each of the relevant actual retirement days as stated in the "Date of Actual Retirement" column (the plaintiff Gap, the plaintiff Eul, the D Headquarters advisory members, the plaintiff Eul headquarters advisory members, the plaintiff N headquarters, and the plaintiff I advisory members in the Seoul metropolitan area).

B. On January 15, 2001, the Defendant Corporation paid the retirement pay calculated at the retirement age of 58 to the Plaintiff A, KRW 204,456,550, and KRW 89,569,320 to the Plaintiff on January 15, 2001, KRW 200,314,000 to the Plaintiff E on October 25, 199, and KRW 123,032,970 to the Plaintiff F on July 20, 200, KRW 182,639,610 to the Plaintiff on October 12, 200, and KRW 10,361,850 to the Plaintiff on April 10, 201.

(c)On the other hand, the retirement age and other status and retirement benefits provisions of the plaintiffs, which were in force in the defendant Corporation at the time of their retirement are as follows:

(1) Provisions relating to retirement age and other status

(a)Paragraph 3 of the Addenda of the former Korea Telecommunication Corporation Act (amended by Law No. 5387 of Oct. 1, 1997): "The retirement age of a person designated by the Minister of Communications from among the officials belonging to the Ministry of Communications, who becomes an employee of the Corporation, shall be the retirement age under the State Public Officials Act, which applied to the class at the time of his retirement, except where the retirement age of the staff of the Corporation is longer than that of the public officials under the State Public Officials Act."

(b)Article 6 of the Addenda to the Abolition of the Korea Telecommunication Corporation Act (Act No. 5387): (1) Any employee of the Corporation under the Korea Telecommunication Corporation Act at the time this Act enters into force shall be deemed a employee of the Corporation under this Act.

(C) Article 35(1)1 of the former Personnel Management Regulations of the Defendant Corporation ( effective January 1, 1998): “The retirement age for the general public employees shall be 58 years of age.”

Paragraph (2) of the same Article: "The retirement age of persons designated by the Minister of Information and Communication from among public officials belonging to the Ministry of Information and Communication and become employees of the company shall be determined by the retirement age under the State Public Officials Act who applied to the class

(D) Article 35(1) of the Personnel Management Regulations of the Defendant Corporation (amended on September 24, 1998): The employee’s retirement age shall be fifty-eight: Provided, That the retirement age and service period of the commander of the reserve forces and the employees in extraordinary civil service in charge of emergency preparation affairs shall be governed by relevant laws and regulations.

Paragraph (2) of the same Article: In cases where the date on which an employee reaches the retirement age falls between January and June, he/she shall be retired ipso facto from office on the 30th of June, and in cases between July and December, on the 31st of December, respectively: Provided, That in cases where the date on which he/she reaches the retirement age falls between July and December, he/she shall be retired ipso facto from office on the 31st

Paragraph 3 of the Addenda to the Personnel Regulations of the same Act: "The previous retirement age shall apply to a person who voluntarily retires before the retirement age on or before January 1, 1999, notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraph 1 of Article 35."

(2) Provisions pertaining to retirement pay

(a)Paragraph 1 of Article 32 of the Remuneration Regulations (amended on December 31, 199, hereinafter the same shall apply): "An employee has served for more than one year and falls under any of the following cases, a retirement allowance shall be paid."

(b)Paragraph 1 of Article 33 of the Remuneration Regulations: "The average wage shall be the sum of the following amounts: 1. The amount calculated by dividing the standard annual salary, basic salary, working environment allowance, overtime work allowance, monthly leave allowance, meal service allowance, meal service allowance, and general service allowance paid to the employee during the three-month period preceding the date on which the cause for the payment of the retirement allowance occurred; 2. The amount calculated by dividing the piece rate for one year from the date on which the cause for the payment of the retirement allowance occurred, annual leave allowance, and effective leave allowance by 12."

(c)Paragraph 1 of Article 34 of the Remuneration Regulations: "The continuous service period for calculation of retirement allowances shall be from the date of employment until the date when the cause for payment of retirement allowances under the provisions of Article 32 occurs."

(d)Article 35 of the Remuneration Regulations: Retirement allowances shall be the amount calculated by the following formula, provided that the fraction of less than 10 won of the total amount of calculation shall not be calculated:

Retirement allowance = Average wage ¡¿ Continuous year of continuous service ＋ the number of continuous service days less than one year/365).

D. Although the Defendant Corporation had a trade union consisting of more than a majority of workers, the Plaintiffs were not entitled to join the trade union as a management worker (class 1 or 2 employees), and the employees belonging to the Defendant Corporation, to which the exception provision under Article 35(1) of the former Personnel Management Act applies, did not apply to the retirement age of 58 years pursuant to Article 35(2) of the former Personnel Management Act, and the number of employees belonging to the Defendant Corporation was 210 at the time of the amendment of the above Personnel Management Act. As above, the Defendant Corporation revised the above Personnel Management Act to unify all employees’ retirement age of 58 years at 58 years, and did not obtain a separate consent from the said 210 employees, including the Plaintiffs, who were non-members.

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts, the Korea Telecommunication Corporation Act provides that a public official belonging to the Ministry of Information and Communication is 61 years of age, which is the retirement age of the previous public official under Article 3 of the Addenda to the Act on the Abolition of the Korea Telecommunication Corporation Act (Act No. 5387) to guarantee the retirement age of the public official who is a public official belonging to the Ministry of Information and Communication, and Article 35 (2) of the personnel regulations of the defendant Corporation (amended by January 1, 1981) also provides that the retirement age of the public official belonging to the Ministry of Information and Communication shall be set at the retirement age of the public official belonging to the Ministry of Information and Communication, and that the above regulations guaranteeing retirement age shall only be invalidated by changing the status of the public official belonging to the defendant Corporation to the minimum status of the public official who has been converted to the status of the public official belonging to the defendant Corporation. Even if the public official is converted to the defendant Corporation, the above regulations are invalid with the consent of the majority of the parties concerned in light of the above personnel rights and interests of the law.

Therefore, the defendant corporation has the obligation to pay the plaintiffs the remuneration and the remaining retirement allowances from the above retirement to the age of 61.

Furthermore, in full view of the whole purport of the arguments and arguments as to the remuneration to be paid by the Defendant Corporation to the Plaintiffs and the remaining amount of the retirement allowances, the amount of the Plaintiffs’ date of birth, date of appointment, annual salary and basic monthly salary at the time of retirement, and the remaining number of months until the Plaintiffs’ pertinent retirement age and retirement age under the former Personnel Regulations of the Defendant Corporation (Enforcement January 1, 1998), which affect the Plaintiffs, shall be the corresponding amount in the same list, and the remaining amount of the retirement allowances calculated by multiplying the average wage by the number of years of continuous service shall be the corresponding amount in the same list.

B. On September 24, 1998, the defendant Corporation revised Article 35 of the above personnel regulations on the unification of the retirement age of employees, and published the fact of shortening the retirement age in the Korea Communications News on September 25, 1998, which is the following day. On September 25, 1998, the defendant Corporation individually notified 281 persons subject to the reduction of retirement age, including the plaintiffs, of the fact that they are given the inevitability of the reduction of retirement age and the opportunity for voluntary retirement. From November 4, 1999 to November 19 of the same month, the defendant Corporation held a meeting by each regional headquarters and held a meeting from November 4, 1999 to the above 198 of the above 281 persons, but did not have received any objection from the above 281 persons including the plaintiffs, and therefore, the plaintiffs asserted that they could not receive the retirement age of this case without any consent from the defendant Corporation.

In full view of the purport of the oral argument, the defendant Corporation revised the above personnel regulations on the reduction of the retirement age group from 61 to 58 years of age on September 25, 1998, and posted them on the Korea Communications News Agency with the purport that the retirement age is reduced from September 25, 1998, and the opportunity for voluntary retirement is given. On September 4, 1998, the defendant Corporation notified the purport of the above personnel regulations revision to the persons subject to the reduction of the retirement age group from November 4, 1999 to November 19 of the same month. However, it is difficult to view that the plaintiffs explicitly consented to the amendment of the above personnel regulations. Further, even if the plaintiffs received the retirement allowance without reservation, the plaintiffs' assertion that each of the retirement allowances was against the principle of good faith after the receipt of the retirement allowance should not be viewed as being in violation of the above personnel regulations.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiffs an amount equivalent to the corresponding amount in the attached list " aggregate" and each of the above amounts by 25% per annum from May 10, 2001 to the full payment day under the records, as requested by the plaintiffs, it is clear that the delivery day of the complaint of this case is the day following the delivery day of the complaint of this case. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim of this case seeking this payment is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Chang-suk (Presiding Judge)