2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to calculate the retirement age on the basis of the initial date of birth entered in the personnel records card at the time of entry.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, cited by this decision, comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances: ① The Defendant’s personnel record card was based on a public document certifying his/her status, such as a family register or a certified copy of resident registration, submitted at the time of entry, which appears to have been intended to take his/her actual status as the basis for personnel management under the strong premise that the entries in the public document would correspond with the truth; ② the basic date for the enforcement of the personnel record also determined the retirement age as “the date of employee’s birth” (which is based on the document submitted at the time of appointment, cannot be applied retroactively to the Plaintiff who requested the extension of the retirement age before the amendment, and the Defendant also made it clear). This is based on the date of birth indicated in the personnel record card, and thus, the retirement age also appears to have been calculated based on the actual date of birth, barring any special circumstance, ③ the change of the entries in the personnel record card, making it revised by providing documentary evidence to reflect the wrongful identification and the Defendant’s actual personnel record management process.