1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 65,359,240 as well as to the plaintiff on May 27, 2014.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 9, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant on July 9, 2008, and entered into a renewal contract on July 9, 2008. Around July 9, 2009, the Plaintiff was converted into a business position and served as the head of the insurance business group, and was retired as an individual cause on December 10, 2013.

B. After the enforcement of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Fixed-Term and Part-Time Workers (hereinafter “ Fixed-Term Act”), the Agricultural Cooperatives Federation, to which the Defendant belongs, established a separate occupational group in relation to the management of human resources for non-regular workers, and established an exemplary plan for the management of human resources for workers on March 3, 2008.

Therefore, the Defendant changed Article 69(2) of the foregoing model to “the matters concerning welfare shall be paid corresponding to the employees in general service, on condition that the Defendant excluded children’s school expenses and welfare pension,” and did not go through a resolution of the board of directors (hereinafter “instant provision”), which was implemented from July 1, 2009, on the ground that Article 69(2) of the Regulations on the Operation of Workers in Service was implemented, but did not go through the procedure to obtain consent from the employees in this process.

C. On August 20, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the National Human Rights Commission on the ground that the failure of the Plaintiff to pay children’s school expenses, welfare pension, heavy food expenses, and business activity support expenses to the employees in general service, unlike the employees in general service and the employees in technical service, constitutes discriminatory acts in employment with no reasonable grounds. On October 22, 2013, the Plaintiff did not pay the children’s school expenses and job activity support expenses despite the provision on the payment of children’s school expenses and welfare benefits. On the ground that there was no reasonable ground for discrimination in relation to children’s school expenses and welfare benefits, the Plaintiff’s provision on the provision on the provision on the provision on the provision on the provision on the provision on the provision on the provision on the provision on the provision on the provision of children’s school expenses and job activity support expenses should be amended.