1. The plaintiff (the plaintiff and the appointed party)'s appeal is dismissed;

2. The costs of appeal shall be those resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 31, 2013, the Plaintiff et al. received from the Intervenor the retirement age of executive members (at least a general director, at least a research institute appointment researcher, at least a production supervisor, and at least a production supervisor) under Article 30 subparag. 1 of the Rules of Employment of Executive Members providing that the retirement age of executive members (at least a general director, at least a research institute appointment researcher, at least a production supervisor) shall be 58 years, while serving in the Intervenor, each of the Plaintiff et al. was issued a personnel appointment

B. On March 10, 2014, the Defendant filed an application for remedy against unfair dismissal on March 10, 2014, and filed an application for remedy against unfair labor practices on March 24, 2014 to the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission (Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission).

On May 15, 2014, Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission ruled to dismiss each of the above requests for remedy.

The designated parties B applied for remedy against unfair dismissal on March 10, 2014, and applied for remedy against unfair labor practices on March 24, 2014 to the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission (Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission).

Accordingly, the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a ruling to dismiss each of the above requests made by the Appointor B on June 9, 2014.

On June 2, 2014, and July 2, 2014, the Plaintiff, Appointed C, and D filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission (14, 59, 667/No78, 97) against each of the above initial inquiry tribunal on July 2, 2014.

However, on August 8, 2014, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination (hereinafter “instant decision for reexamination”).

C. The Plaintiff et al. filed a lawsuit against the Defendant (Defendant) with the Seoul Administrative Court 2014Guhap16170, seeking the revocation of the instant decision on reexamination.

However, on October 22, 2015, the Seoul Administrative Court stated that “The Rules of Employment of Executive Members, which provide for the retirement age of executives and employees, are valid, and the instant personnel appointment is merely a notification of the concept that informs the Plaintiff, etc. that they were retired under the Rules of Employment of Executive Members, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the instant personnel appointment constitutes unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices.”