부당해고구제재심판정취소
1. All appeals filed by the Defendant and the Intervenor are dismissed.
2. The portion resulting from the participation in the appeal costs.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the part resulting from a written appeal under Paragraph (2) below, and thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
(Other grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the Intervenor do not differ significantly from the allegations in the first instance court, and even if all the evidence submitted by the first instance court and this court are examined, the fact-finding and judgment in the first instance court are justifiable). 2. On the part of the first instance court, the “C Co., Ltd.” in the second part of the second part of the second part of the first instance judgment was dismissed to “K Co., Ltd.”.
Part 10 of the first instance judgment, Part 2 of the second instance judgment "I" shall be added to "H".
Nos. 10 to 11 of the judgment of the first instance shall be followed as follows.
(C) The retirement age provision of this case under the instant retirement age provision was set at “60 years of age” at the time of the enactment of the instant rules of employment, and the fact that “3” was set at the upper end of the “60 years of age” among the “60 years of age” portion of the instant retirement age provision, as seen earlier. However, in light of the following circumstances, the evidence and evidence submitted by the Defendant alone are insufficient to acknowledge that the retirement age provision of this case was changed to “63 years of age,” and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
① Article 19 subparag. 1 of the Rules of Employment of this case revised by using a visible pension in accordance with the labor-management agreement of this case, and affixed the Plaintiff’s corporate seal.
In addition, Article 30 of the Rules of Employment of this case also 2 lines were used with the visible pension in accordance with the labor-management agreement of this case.
Although Article 30 of the Rules of Employment of this case did not affix the Plaintiff’s corporate seal, Article 30 of the Rules of Employment of this case is the Rules of Employment of this case.