1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is as stated in Article 8(1) of the judgment of the first instance other than using “D” as “H”, this part is cited.

2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful

A. The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion is to be revoked as it is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) An employer has broad discretion as to whether to re-employment a retired employee under his/her duty, and collective agreements in 2015 (hereinafter “instant collective agreements”) are concluded (hereinafter “instant collective agreements”).

Article 28(2) of the instant collective agreement is merely a procedural provision that requires the Labor-Management Council to determine whether to re-employment, and thus, it cannot be recognized as the right to renew the labor contract based on this. The purport of Article 28(2) of the instant collective agreement was to be amended in 2015, which is to ensure that the sentence structure, which is in the former and latter part, is consistent with one of the sentence structure, and to delete the retirement age limit of 65 years and to conclude a re-employment contract on a one-year basis, and not to strengthen the obligation to re-employment. (2) Article 66(2) of the Plaintiff’s Rules of Employment (hereinafter “Rules of Employment”) of the Rules of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Rules of Employment”) provides that “Where a person has no physical disability, a person has contributed significantly to his/her employment, and is deemed to have excellent ability at the time of his/her employment, a re-employment

3) The Plaintiff lawfully held a Labor-Management Council pursuant to Article 28(2) of the instant collective agreement to examine the eligibility of the Intervenor, and the Labor-Management Council does not formally confirm the result of the review by the Personnel Committee, and the refusal of this case is lawful. 4) Even if Article 28(2) of the instant collective agreement is deemed lawful.