1. The judgment of the first instance court, including a claim modified in the trial, shall be modified as follows:

In the lawsuit of this case.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance is modified or added, as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, this is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2.No. 3, written or added, the following shall be added to the third part:

A person shall be appointed.

2. In a case where dismissal of an ex officio employee as to the legitimacy of the claim for confirmation of invalidity of dismissal is sought for confirmation of nullity and a claim for wages during the period during which he could provide labor, it is apparent that the lawsuit for confirmation of invalidity of dismissal is aimed at restoring the status under the labor contract between the defendant and the defendant. Thus, it is impossible to recover the status as an employee if the retirement age, which is an inevitable ground for dismissal, has already been attained under the personnel regulations of the defendant at the time of the closure of the trial court

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da57362 Decided July 22, 2004, etc.). However, the fact that the Plaintiff born in E and reached the retirement age of 60 years of age on March 31, 2020 according to the Defendant’s employee personnel management regulations does not conflict between the parties, or that the Plaintiff’s employment relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was recognized by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of entry and pleading in the evidence No. 1. 1. Thus, it was impossible to recover the status of the Defendant’s employee due to the termination of retirement age on March 31, 2020.

Therefore, the part of the claim for nullification of dismissal among the lawsuit in this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

In Part 3, “the claim for confirmation of invalidity of dismissal 2.” in Part 4, “the claim for confirmation of invalidity of dismissal 3.” is deemed to be “the claim for unpaid wages.” In Part 4, “ June 1, 2016” in Part 11 is deemed to be “ September 1, 2016.” Nos. 7 and 16 are as follows. The Plaintiff entered into a labor contract with the Defendant by setting the amount of KRW 80,000 as annual salary between the Defendant and the Defendant.