Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Jae-in, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul metro (Attorney Song-chan, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

July 22, 2016

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Kahap562791 Decided April 14, 2016

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

The plaintiff's retirement age is confirmed until December 31, 2019.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows: (a) the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, (b) the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is cited in accordance with the main sentence of

2. The changed part

3. Determination

Since rules of employment have the nature of legal norms that provide for collective legal relations between labor and management, interpretation or fact-finding that disregards the objective meaning of the language and text should be prudent and strict unless there is clear evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da69631 delivered on March 14, 2003).

Considering the above facts and the overall purport of the arguments as a whole, it is reasonable to calculate the Plaintiff’s retirement age based on December 1, 1958, which is the date of birth on documents, which can verify the Plaintiff’s age, submitted at the time of appointment pursuant to the latter part of Article 55 of the amended Personnel Regulations, based on the following circumstances. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim seeking confirmation of the Plaintiff’s retirement age by December 31, 2019, based on January 9, 1959, the actual date of birth, is without merit.

A. The term “retirement age system” refers to a system or practice that terminates a labor relationship on the ground that a worker attains a certain age, regardless of the intention or ability to continue the labor of the relevant worker. If the retirement age is determined in a labor contract, that is, when the labor relationship is terminated, the date of retirement is not determined on the basis of the biological age, but is one of the elements of the labor contract that should be determined based on the normative standard.

B. In a case where an employee and an employer determine elements affecting labor relations, such as the conditions or contents of labor, the principle can be determined according to the free will of the parties in accordance with the principle of private autonomy unless the employer violates the mandatory provisions of the Labor Standards Act, etc. In this regard, if there are provisions in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes in the first place, they shall be followed, and if there are no such provisions in the rules of employment or collective agreement, they shall be governed by the rules of employment or collective agreement of the company in question, and

C. It is reasonable to view the latter part of Article 55 of the amended Personnel Regulations as explicitly stipulating that the working rules prepared by an employer constituted the rules of employment in order to uniformly set the standards for retirement age, which is working conditions, and that the date of birth, which serves as the basis for calculating retirement age, is the date of birth on the document submitted at the time of appointment in light of the objective meaning

D. Article 19 of the Act on Prohibition of Age Discrimination in Employment and Elderly Employment Promotion only stipulates that an employer shall set the retirement age of workers at 60 years or older, and does not stipulate the meaning of the date of birth, which is the basis for the calculation of that age. As seen earlier, Article 32 of the Personnel Regulations provides that the retirement age of employees shall be 60 years or older. The latter part of Article 55 of the Personnel Regulations provides that the meaning of the date of birth, which serves as the basis for the calculation of that age, is only a provision regarding the meaning of the date of birth, and thus, it is difficult to deem it invalid in violation of Article 19

E. The plaintiff argues that the latter part of Article 55 of the Regulations on the Management of Personnel is merely an agreement under a collective agreement and that the employer is not an individual agreement between the defendant and the worker. However, if the employer intends to change the contents of the existing working conditions to a disadvantage to the workers due to a change of the rules of employment, it is necessary to obtain the consent by the collective decision-making method of the worker group that was subject to the previous rules of employment. If there is a trade union consisting of more than half of the workers, the union must obtain the consent, and if there is no such union, the union shall obtain the consent by the meeting method of the workers, and if there is no such union, the revision of the rules of employment shall be valid without obtaining the consent of the individual workers (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da46841 delivered on May 24, 1994). Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant's consent is valid without the need to obtain the consent of the individual workers as long as it

F. As seen earlier, it is reasonable to deem that the latter part of Article 55 of the Regulations on the Enforcement of the Regulations on the Personnel Management of Seoul Western District Court was applied because the Plaintiff received permission from the court after June 13, 2013, which was the enforcement date of the latter part of Article 55 of the Regulations on the Personnel Management of Seoul Western District Court, and corrected the family relations register and requested the Defendant to extend the retirement age on or around August 22, 2013. The latter part of Article 55 of the Regulations on the Enforcement of the Regulations on the Personnel Management of the amended Regulations applies to the Plaintiff solely on the ground that the Plaintiff applied for rectification of the register to the Seoul Western District Court on or before June 13, 2013.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the defendant's appeal is accepted and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as per Disposition.

Judges Embryon (Presiding Judge)