The judgment below

Of them, the part of the claim for nullification of dismissal is reversed, and the judgment of the first instance as to this part is revoked.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. The gist of the allegation in the grounds of appeal in this part is as follows: (a) the Defendant amended the rules of employment (Personnel Management Regulations) to the effect that the retirement age is reduced to 58 years with the consent of five of the entire six workers on December 23, 2013 through a collective decision-making process; (b) its content is reasonable by social norms; and accordingly, (c) the Plaintiff had already been set at the retirement age before the conclusion of pleadings in the lower court; (d) in so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the logical and empirical rules and misapprehending the legal doctrine on Article 94 of the Labor Standards Act; and (e) even if the retirement age is followed by the personnel management regulations set at 60 years prior to the completion of pleadings in the lower court, the Plaintiff did not have any

B. First of all, in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court, citing the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, acknowledged the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, and determined that the Defendant did not follow the method of collective decision-making by amending the personnel management regulations, which are the rules of employment, on December 23, 2013, and further, the amendment of the above personnel management regulations, which reduces retirement age to 58 years of age, is difficult to deem that there is rationality under social norms to the extent that its legal norms can be recognized regardless of employees’ consent. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s retirement age should be deemed to be 60 years of age under the personnel management regulations prior to the amendment.

In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by violating logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending relevant legal principles

C. Meanwhile, in a case where a retirement disposition against a worker constitutes an actual dismissal, seeking confirmation of its invalidity and claiming wages during the period during which the worker could have provided labor, the lawsuit for confirmation of invalidity of dismissal shall be filed with the defendant.