1. On October 19, 2015, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered unfair remedy between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Intervenor.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. On August 21, 2002, the Plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of mining transport, commuting and material transport, and mining manpower supply service business, which is a company that operates bus operation and materials transport services, which is entrusted by the Korea Coal Corporation from the Korea Coal Corporation, using approximately 20 full-time workers, and the Defendant Intervenor B (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) was employed by the Plaintiff on January 1, 2003, while serving as a transit bus driver on the ground that he/she reached the retirement age of 60 years of age as of March 31, 2015.

B. On April 29, 2015, an intervenor filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the former Regional Labor Relations Commission on the ground that “Notwithstanding the Plaintiff’s retirement age under a collective agreement (the end of the month in which the date on which he/she reaches the age of 60 falls) reaches March 12, 2016, dismissing an employee as of March 31, 2015 by applying the retirement age under the rules of employment (the end of the month in which the date on which he/she reaches the age of 60 falls).”

On June 30, 2015, the Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a judgment that dismissal of an intervenor on March 31, 2015 (hereinafter “the early inquiry court”) was unfair on the ground that “Although Article 21 of the collective agreement explicitly states that “the retirement age of a member shall be the end of 60 years of age,” the Plaintiff’s retirement at the end of the month in which he/she turns 60 years of age shall apply Article 49 of the Rules of Employment shall be the unfair dismissal.”

C. On July 23, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for review with the Defendant seeking revocation of the said initial inquiry tribunal as the Central Office No. 2015Da7444.

The Defendant, on October 19, 2015, has the nature of a legal norm that prescribes collective legal relations between labor and management. Therefore, barring any clear evidence, interpretation that disregards the objective meaning of the language and text or fact-finding leading thereto shall be prudent and strict, and in a collective agreement, the collective agreement clearly states that “the retirement age of the union members shall be at the end of 60 years of age” and “B” in “60 years of age.”