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

A. The Plaintiff, as a B student, worked as a contract-based cleaning worker for a period of one year from January 1, 2006 to a contract-based cleaning worker. On January 1, 2013, the Plaintiff was engaged in cleaning as a public official of education in the C Community Center established and operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant Community Center”) by December 31, 2016.

B. On December 17, 2012, the instant hall established the rules of employment for school accounting workers (hereinafter “instant rules of employment”) for inorganic contract workers and fixed-term workers.

The main contents of the instant rules of employment are as follows.

Article 1 (Purpose) The purpose of these Rules is to prescribe matters concerning life contracts and the personnel affairs, working conditions, and service of fixed-term workers employed in the instant hall.

Article 8 (Term of Contract and Age Limit) (1) The term of employment contract for workers shall be the period prescribed by the retirement age or employment contract.

(2) The retirement age of workers shall be 60 years of age, and where the retirement age falls between January and June, the retirement age shall be ipso facto dismissed on June 30, and where between July and December, on December 31, respectively.

Article 43 (Ipso Facto Retirement) If a worker falls under any of the following subparagraphs, he/she shall retire ex officio from office:

1. Where an employee employed for a fixed period of contract fails to renew the contract after the expiration of the contract;

2. Where he reaches the retirement age.

3. Where he dies.

4. Where he falls under subparagraphs 1 through 6 of Article 6 (excluding the case as referred to in subparagraph 5 of the said Article);

C. On December 23, 2016, the head of the instant hall issued a personnel notification (hereinafter “instant notification”) to the Plaintiff on December 31, 2016, stating that the Plaintiff became retirement age pursuant to Articles 8 and 43 of the Rules of Employment as of December 31, 2016, but the instant notification was returned as of December 27, 2016.

On January 23, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy against unfair dismissal with the former North Regional Labor Relations Commission (Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2017JJ 13), but on March 20, 2017, the dismissal claimed by the Plaintiff has the retirement age prescribed by the rules of employment.