2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant’s Intervenor, while the remainder shall be borne by the Defendant’s Intervenor, respectively.

The decision made by the National Labor Relations Commission on June 8, 2007 between the designated parties listed in the Plaintiff (Appointeds) and the List of the Appointeds and the Defendant’s Intervenors and the decision made by the Central Labor Relations Commission on the application for reexamination of unfair dismissal shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s claim shall be dismissed.

This Court's reasoning is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for addition and modification as follows. Thus, this Court's reasoning is cited by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(a) On the sixth two pages of the judgment of the first instance; and

The wage rate shall be adjusted for those who are 25 or more years of employment and who are 50 or more years of age (1956), and detailed matters shall be discussed at the labor-management council (3-year limited period).

(3) To add up to 30 persons who consent to restructuring and the criteria for selecting eligible persons and detailed matters shall be discussed at a labor-management council.

(b) rectify the 5th 11th 11th 1 of the first instance court ruling to “the 5th Appointor”.

(c) correct the 9th written “Objection” of the first instance judgment to “Objection”;

(d) from 4th to 12th day of the first instance judgment, to 4th day below;

“In light of the following circumstances, the facts acknowledged earlier or the evidence adopted earlier, namely, ○○ Hospital’s need for restructuring due to aggravation of its management status at the time of the conclusion of the instant special agreement, and the special agreement included the restructuring of up to 30 persons separate from the reduction of the retirement age from 60 to 54 years, and there was no separate restructuring other than the total retirement age for 54 years on the ground that 22 persons including the Plaintiff et al. were employed after the enforcement of the instant special agreement (However, 3 persons were employed at the age of 54 years in 207). The instant special agreement was established for a reasonable period of up to 5 years to 20 years old and later to 50 years old and later to 205 years old and later to 4 years old and later to 50 years old and later to 50 years old and later to 50 years old and later to 50 years old and later to 205 years old and later to 5 years old and later to 205 years old.

Therefore, the retirement disposition of this case, which was conducted under the Special Convention and the Rules of Employment, constitutes a de facto dismissal (the intervenor, the plaintiff, etc. merely retired ipso facto according to the reduced retirement age regulations, but cannot make a request for remedy such as unfair dismissal, since they were not dismissed. However, as long as the part concerning retirement age of this case in the Special Convention is null and void, it is merely an unfair dismissal that took the form of retirement age) unless any other evidence exists to deem that there exists a justifiable reason for the dismissal. Thus, the retrial decision of this case, which was otherwise reported, is unlawful.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim of this case by the plaintiff et al. is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

【Omission of Selection List】

Judges Kim Jong-sung (Presiding Justice)