2. The costs of appeal, including the costs of supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

A. The status of the parties and the issuance of retirement age 1) The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is deemed to be an intervenor.

(2) On November 1, 200, the Plaintiff was established on November 23, 200, and the head office in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City employs 2,456 full-time workers, and is an incorporated foundation that is engaged in the nationwide security and facility management business. 2) On January 1, 2001, the Plaintiff was employed by the Intervenor and voluntarily retires on November 3, 2008. However, on January 11, 201, the Plaintiff re-entered the Intervenor as a security instructor and carried out the duties such as job training for security guards.

3) On June 30, 2013, an intervenor issued a retirement notice to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff reached the retirement age of 58 years of age (hereinafter “instant retirement notice”) on the ground that the Plaintiff reached the retirement age (hereinafter “instant retirement notice”).

(B) On July 19, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant retirement order constituted unfair dismissal, and applied for remedy to the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission (Seoul District Court Decision 2013, 2047). However, on September 11, 2013, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on the ground that the Plaintiff’s retirement order cannot be deemed unfair on the ground that the Plaintiff’s on-site employees reached the age of 58, which is the retirement age stipulated in the Intervenor’s employment rules and the guidelines for operating security instructors.

2) On October 2, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter “Central Labor Relations Commission”) on October 2, 2013, but the National Labor Relations Commission also dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the ground that the issuance of the instant retirement age was justifiable, as the Plaintiff reached the age of 58, such as the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, on December 6, 2013 (hereinafter “instant reexamination decision”).

(i) [Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, entries in Gap evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings.

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

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 intervenor is 60 years of age under the Intervenor’s Rules of Employment for On-Site Employees, which came into force as of January 1, 2010.