2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3...

A. On April 7, 1997, the amendments to the Personnel Management Regulations and the Benefit Regulations of the defendant made up of the chief executive officer of the City/Do branch under the defendant's control on April 7, 1997, the defendant held an operating committee composed of the chief executive officer of the City/Do branch under the defendant's control on April 7, 199. Article 43 of the Personnel Management Regulations amended that "the retirement age is 60 years for the employees, and 58 years for the other employees," "the retirement age is 58 years for the employees, 58 years for the employees, and 55 years for the other employees," and that "the retirement age is 58 years for the employees, 5 years for the employees, and 26 years for the other employees to reach the age of 55 years for the retirement age."

3) Thereafter, on December 20, 200, 184 of 257 workers were consented to the part as stated in Paragraph (2) of the above amendment.

B. On October 31, 2007, the revision of the wage rules 1) The defendant adopted the so-called "the family salary grade system" to add wages to the workers who reached the salary class 1, which is the highest salary class by class, at the time of salary grade each year thereafter, and revised the wage rules by holding a steering committee on October 31, 2007, but decided to enforce the revised wage rules from January 1, 2008. 2) On December 2007, 2007, the defendant agreed to the above amendment by 209 among the 392 workers subject to the amendment.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 3 through 5, 19 (including each number in case of provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 through 3, 11, 15 through 19, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The defendant dated April 7, 1997.