부당해고구제재심판정취소
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. The total cost of the lawsuit is resulting from the supplementary participation.
1. Details of the decision on retrial;
A. On August 21, 2002, the Plaintiff was established for the purpose of mining transport, commuting and material transport, and mining manpower supply service business, and is a company that is entrusted with the operation of bus services and the transportation of materials from the Korea Coal Corporation, which is operated by approximately 20 full-time workers, and the Defendant Intervenor B (hereinafter “the Intervenor”) entered the Plaintiff company as a part of the Plaintiff company on January 1, 2003 and worked as a part-time bus driver.
B. On March 24, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor of the termination of the labor contract that “I notify the Intervenor of the termination of the labor contract according to his retirement age as of March 31, 2015.”
C. On April 29, 2015, an intervenor filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the former Regional Labor Relations Commission on the ground that the Plaintiff’s retirement age under the rules of employment (the last day of the month in which the date on which the Plaintiff reaches the age of 60 falls) was unreasonable, despite the end of 60 years of age under the provisions on the retirement age of the collective agreement, on March 12, 2016. The former Regional Labor Relations Commission made an application for dismissal of unfair dismissal (Article 21 of the collective agreement No. 2015, Jun. 30, 2015) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s retirement age under the rules of employment (the last day of the month in which the date on which he/she reaches the age of 60 falls) was unreasonable. However, the former Regional Labor Relations Commission made an adjudication that dismissal of the Intervenor on March 31, 2015 (hereinafter “the early adjudication tribunal”).
On July 23, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the Defendant seeking revocation of the said early inquiry court as the Central District Court Decision 2015Du7444, but the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on October 19, 2015.
hereinafter referred to as "the decision of this case" is referred to as "the decision of this case"
2) Grounds for the appeal Nos. 1 through 2
2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is the Plaintiff Company and the Plaintiff Trade Union.