1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit (including the part resulting from the supplementary participation) shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The details and details of the decision on retrial and the Defendant’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is a company that was established on September 23, 1970 and employs 100 full-time workers and operates taxi passenger transport services.

The plaintiff (the plaintiff of July 19, 1955) joined the intervenor on October 10, 2002 and served as a taxi engineer.

Around July 14, 2015, an intervenor notified the Plaintiff that “the Plaintiff shall reach retirement age as of July 19, 2015 pursuant to Articles 53, 55(1)3, and 55(2)3 of the collective agreement, and Article 46 of the Rules of Employment,” and the Intervenor dismissed the Plaintiff on July 19, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant retirement disposition”. On September 7, 2015, the Plaintiff and the former National Housing Trade Union dismissed an application for remedy on the ground that the Intervenor was unfair to the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission, and that it constitutes unfair labor practices. On October 30, 2015, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for remedy on the ground that “the Plaintiff was automatically retired at the retirement age, and thus the instant retirement disposition cannot be deemed dismissal and does not constitute unfair labor practices.”

On December 4, 2015, the Plaintiff and the former National Housing Trade Union were dissatisfied with it and applied for reexamination to the National Labor Relations Commission, and the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for reexamination on the same ground on February 23, 2016.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant reexamination decision”). Of the final adjudication on reexamination, the Central Review Decision 2015, Annex 1257 related to the review of this case” (hereinafter referred to as the “instant reexamination decision”) did not dispute (based on recognition), the each entry of evidence Nos. 2, Eul 1, 2, 3, and Eul 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the collective agreement of the Intervenor, the rules of employment, and the rules of employment on the retirement age of the Plaintiff, but there was no entry that set forth the retirement age of the taxi workers by applying retirement age

An intervenor has not completed the labor relationship of taxi workers by applying the retirement age regulations, so the plaintiff is entitled to work even after the retirement age.