1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is an organization established for the purpose of running a private taxi transportation business's common interest business, and the plaintiff is a worker who had been employed by the defendant-affiliated mutual aid association from May 197.

B. The Defendant’s personnel management rules were replaced by the personnel management rules that were enforced on January 1, 2014, and Article 4 of the above personnel management rules is divided into the Defendant’s employees and the general service members (Paragraph 1), and the executive officers are class 1 A, class 1, class 1, class 2, and class 3, class 4, class 5, and class 6 (Paragraph 2), and the contract employees are class 7 and short-term contract positions.

(3) According to Article 4. The defendant's employees shall be divided into the executive officers and the general service members (Paragraph 1), the executive officers shall be divided into Grade 1 A, Grade 1, Grade 2, Grade 3, and the general staff shall be classified into Grade 4, Grade 5, Grade 6, Grade 7, and the commission (Paragraph 2).

Article 43 of the Personnel Management Regulations of the Defendant is also Article 76 of the Personnel Management Regulations.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant retirement age provision”) generally refers to class 1 A and class 1 (hereinafter referred to as class 1) among the Defendant’s employees.

(D) On December 31, 2013, on the ground that the Plaintiff reached the age of 55 as a class 2 employee, the retirement age for an employee who is 58 years of age, and whose class is 2 or lower, was 55 years of age. On December 31, 2013, the Defendant issued a disposition to retire from office against the Plaintiff in accordance with the instant retirement age provision. [In the absence of a dispute over the grounds for recognition, each entry in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion of the instant retirement age provision is null and void, in violation of Article 4-4(1)5 of the Act on Prohibition of Age Discrimination in Employment and Elderly Employment Promotion (hereinafter “Age Discrimination Act”), as it discriminates against workers in the field of retirement on the grounds of age without any reasonable grounds. Therefore, the Defendant’s retirement age provision against the Plaintiff on December 31, 2013 based on the above retirement age provision is null and void.

3. Determination

A. Article 4-4 of the Prohibition of Age Discrimination Act provides for the retirement age provision of this case.