logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2016.03.18 2015가합107114
정년확인의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On February 1, 1982, the Plaintiff entered the Defendant company that conducts airport management, operation, and development projects for surrounding areas, and served as a position of the head of the Defendant’s facility group as of February 1, 1982.

B. At the time of entry, the Plaintiff entered the name entered in the family register, resident registration record card, etc. as “C” and “D,” and also entered the Defendant’s personnel record card. C. On February 4, 2015, the Plaintiff is recognized as the Plaintiff’s natural father in the Gwangju District Court Decision 2014ddan3619 claim confirmation of paternity.

In the case of a request for correction of register No. 2015No. 286 of the same court on March 30, 2015, “A’s expulsion from the register was pronounced,” the court shall permit the cancellation of the expulsion from the register and the establishment of a new family register on the basis thereof.

“The” has received a decision, and in the case of an application for correction of the registry (Dual registry) at the same court No. 2015-Ma24 on April 29, 2015, the register of removed entries in the register of Australia is closed, and all matters recorded in the family relations register to be closed are transferred to the family relations register A. The decision was made.

When the Plaintiff’s name and date of birth on the Plaintiff’s public account were corrected to “A” and “F” according to the court’s decision, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant on May 27, 2015 for the change of the Plaintiff’s name and date of birth to the said content.

Accordingly, on July 22, 2015, the Defendant rejected the above application on the grounds that the factual basis of the above application for change is unclear and that the personnel management is difficult.

E. Article 69(1) of the Personnel Regulations enacted by the Defendant is specified as follows:

(1) The retirement age of employees shall be as follows:

Provided, That the retirement age of the commander of the reserve forces and emergency preparedness officers during extraordinary civil service shall be in accordance with relevant statutes.

1. Not less than Grade II or higher in general service and not less than Grade II in extraordinary service: 58 years of age;

2. Grade III or lower in general service, Grade III or lower in extraordinary civil service, and the police assigned for special guard and security screening service: 58 years of age (based on recognition).

arrow