[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff CL et al.

Attorneys Hong Jin-won, Park Jong-Un et al.

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1

Attorney Kim Dong-dong, Justice Kim Min-young, Justice Jin-young, Justice Jin-young, and Justice Park under the ground.

Law Firm A&S (Law Firm A&S)

Attorney Cho Young-ro, Lee Young-soo, Counsel for the defendant

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked, and all of the lawsuits are dismissed. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne individually by each party.

1. “The benefit of confirmation” in a lawsuit for confirmation is recognized when the party’s right or legal status is in danger of apprehension and the removal of such danger is the most effective and appropriate means (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da1264, Oct. 11, 1991).

2. The Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the part of the incidental agreement between A (A was merged with HB on May 31, 2017, and the Defendant took over the instant lawsuit, and the Defendant did not distinguish between A and the Defendant; hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) and B Trade Union, which was concluded on December 17, 2013 by asserting the following:

A. On December 17, 2013, the Defendant and the B Trade Union concluded an incidental agreement with the content that, unlike the retirement age of an employee born after 1958, the retirement age of 1955 was one year, the retirement age of 1956, one year and six months, and the retirement age of 1957 that of 1957 was extended by two years.

B. The Act on Prohibition of Age Discrimination in Employment and Elderly Employment Promotion (hereinafter referred to as the “Act on the Employment of the Aged”) etc. violates the right to equal rights under the Constitution or the Act on the Prohibition of Age Discrimination in Employment and Elderly Employment Promotion.

It is invalid in violation of each provision prohibiting discrimination. However, the part of 1956 born in January 1, 2016 is invalid in violation of Article 19 of the Elderly Employment Act, which stipulates that the retirement age shall be at least 60 years old. Accordingly, the retirement date of the Plaintiffs, who are the employees born in the latter part of 1956, should be deemed as December 31, 2016 of the year when the Plaintiffs become 60 years old according to the Defendant’s revised personnel regulations and its enforcement regulations.

3. According to the aforementioned Plaintiffs’ assertion, the retirement date of the Plaintiffs’ assertion has already lapsed, and the seeking nullification of the retirement age portion among the incidental agreements concluded on December 17, 2013 cannot be deemed the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the existing rights of the Plaintiffs or the apprehension and danger in their legal status.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' lawsuit to nullify the invalidity of this case was no longer effective, and thus, the judgment of the court below which reviewed and judged the merits cannot be maintained.

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed. Since the Supreme Court is sufficient to directly render a judgment, the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and all of the lawsuits of this case are dismissed, and the total cost of the lawsuit is borne by each party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench

Chief Justice Park Sang-ok

Justices Noh Jeong-chul

Justices Kim In-bok

A person shall be appointed.