임금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420
2. Article 76, which provides for retirement age among the Personnel Service Regulations (Evidence A76) of the Plaintiff’s assertion, is null and void for the following reasons. As such, retirement measures taken on May 1, 2015 against the Plaintiff by the Defendant Federation (hereinafter “Defendant Federation”) are also null and void. The Defendant Federation is obligated to pay the Plaintiff unpaid wages and damages for delay during the period from May 2015 to January 2018.
Article 76 of the Personnel Service Rule of this case, which lacks the resolution of the board of directors, is the subject of the defendant federation pursuant to the articles of association (A No. 11) and must be amended by the resolution of the board of directors of the defendant federation, but the operating committee of the mutual aid association which is only a business department under the defendant federation was arbitrarily amended without any authority
B. Article 76 of the Personnel Service Rule of the instant case, which deviates from the scope of delegation, should be established within the scope of delegation by the personnel management regulations (Evidence A 12) of the Defendant Federation, which is a superior norm. Since the said personnel management regulations have adjusted the retirement age of workers lower than the provisions of Article 29 (Regular Retirement) of the said Regulations, they exceeded the bounds of delegation by the superior norm
C. Article 76 of the Personnel Service Rule of this case was amended by the resolution of the Steering Committee of the Mutual Aid Association on April 7, 1999 due to the procedural defect in holding the meeting. The above resolution of April 7, 1999 was held only for the defendant's branch heads without excluding the executive officers of the Mutual Aid Association (president, executive director, and auditor). Thus, Article 22 (1) of the Mutual Aid Regulations was violated.
3. Determination
A. We examine whether the amendment of Article 76 of the Personnel Service Rule of this case requires the resolution of the board of directors of the defendant federation, according to the following purport: Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 11, Gap evidence 12, Gap evidence 13, Eul evidence 10, and Eul evidence 10.