1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is an organization established for the purpose of running a common interest business of private taxi transport business operators. The Plaintiff is a person who was employed as an employee of the Financial Cooperative under the Defendant’s jurisdiction from May 1997, and the age limit of 55 years is applied to class 2 employee and retired on December 31, 2013.

B. Of the Defendant’s personnel management regulations, Article 4 of the personnel management regulations that correspond to the Defendant’s rules of employment, such as the provision related to retirement age, stipulates that the Defendant’s employees are classified as “executive officers and general service personnel (paragraph (1)),” “the executive officers as Grades I and I, I, II, and III, and the general employees as Grades IV, V, VI, VI, VII, and Entrustment (Paragraph (2).” Article 43 of the said regulations provides that “the retirement age for each employee is at least Grade I, V, VI, VII, and when the other employees reach the age of 55” as “the retirement age for each employee’s class.”

hereinafter referred to as "the retirement age regulations of this case"

The Defendant’s personnel management regulations were replaced by the personnel service regulations enforced on March 24, 2014. Article 4 of the said personnel management regulations stipulates that the Defendant’s employees were replaced by the personnel service regulations that were enforced on March 24, 2014. Article 4 of the said personnel management regulations is divided into Grade I A, Grade I, Grade II, Grade II, Grade VI, and Grade VI, general employees, Grade VII, and Grade VII and short-term contract employees (Paragraph 2), respectively (Paragraph 3). Article 76 of the said personnel management regulations stipulates that the retirement age is between Grade VII and Grade VII, and the other employees are 58 years of age for retirement, and the last day of the month in which the Defendant reaches the age of 55. [The fact that there is no ground for dispute over the recognition, each entry in subparagraphs 1 through 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings.]

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant’s retirement disposition against the Plaintiff on December 31, 2013, based on the instant retirement age provision, is invalid for the following reasons.

In light of the current status of the Defendant’s management of employees by class, there is no reasonable ground to distinguish the retirement age from class 1 and class 1, such as the instant retirement age regulations.

Therefore, the retirement age provision of this case, which sets the retirement age differentiated, is a mandatory provision.