1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is reasonable and acceptable.

(However, the judgment on the argument at the appellate court on the 2nd 10th 5th 10 written judgment of the court of first instance is delivered with evidence Nos. 1 through 5 as evidence Nos. 1 through 5)

A. The plaintiff asserts that there was no legitimate consent of a majority of the workers, even in this court, that the defendant established the retirement provision of this case which imposes unfavorable working conditions to the workers, and did not give sufficient explanation to the workers or give free opportunity to exchange opinions, and it is difficult to view that the majority of the workers under Article 94(1) of the Labor Standards Act obtained consent in accordance with collective decision-making, and therefore, the establishment of the retirement provision of this case and the retirement age of this case premised thereon are invalid.

However, in full view of the following circumstances, the employees working for the defendant's camping camp agreed to revise the employee operation rules of this case by 12%, 75%, after reviewing the amendment of the employee operation rules of this case on their own, and there are no other circumstances to deem that the defendant forced the employees to give consent to the extent that it impedes the autonomous and collective decision-making of workers, etc., the employee operation rules of this case are valid after obtaining consent from a majority of the employees by the collective decision-making method, and it is difficult to view any different evidence produced by the plaintiff in this court.

Plaintiff

We do not accept the argument.

B. The plaintiff asserts that there was no consent of a majority of inorganic contract workers, that only four inorganic contract workers who were directly disadvantaged due to the establishment of the retirement provision of this case constitute the consent body of the establishment of the retirement provision of this case, and all of them did not agree, therefore, the retirement provision of this case is null and void.

Many workers groups.