The part of the claim for nullification of dismissal is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

Where seeking confirmation of invalidity of dismissal for workers and claiming wages for a period during which workers could have provided labor, the action to confirm invalidity of dismissal is aimed at restoring the status under the labor contract between the employer and the employer. As such, inasmuch as it is impossible to recover the status as an employee if the retirement age, which is the inevitable ground for dismissal, has already been attained under the personnel regulations of the employer at the time of the conclusion of the fact-finding proceedings, it is impossible

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da10027 delivered on October 11, 1996, etc.). According to the records, Article 47(1) of the Rules of Employment of the Defendant’s Textiles Sector provides that “the employee’s retirement age shall be December 31 of the year in which he turns 55 years of age.” Article 19 of the Rules of Employment of the Defendant’s dry Sector provides that “the employee’s retirement age shall be December 31 of the year in which he turns 55 years of age.” The Defendant’s dry Section 19 of the Rules of Employment provides that “the employee’s retirement age shall be December 31 of the year in which he turns 55 years of age.” The Plaintiff C and the Plaintiff’s G, respectively,

According to the above, the plaintiffs' retirement age came as of December 31, 2015, and the retirement age has already expired at March 16, 2016, which was the date of the closing of argument in the court below. Therefore, barring any special circumstances, it became impossible for the plaintiffs to recover their status as workers.

Ultimately, there is no interest in confirmation of the plaintiffs' claim for nullification of dismissal of this case.

Therefore, although the court below should have dismissed the plaintiffs' claim for confirmation of invalidity of the above dismissal because the plaintiffs' claim for confirmation of dismissal was unlawful because it did not have any interest in confirmation, it erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the interest in confirmation.

The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the plaintiffs' request for nullification of dismissal is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded.