1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The part concerning the claim for nullification of dismissal, among the instant lawsuits, shall be dismissed.

3. The defendant.

1. The reasoning for this part of the underlying facts is as stated in the reasoning of “1. Basic Facts” part of the judgment of the first instance, except for the alteration or addition as follows. Therefore, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The two-way "Plaintiff Company" of the first instance judgment is converted into "Defendant Company".

Article 32 of the "Article 32" shall be added to the three 11th instance judgment of the first instance court (to be deemed as a clerical error in Article 23).

The following shall be added to 4 pages of the first instance judgment:

(k) On April 5, 2016, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the chairperson of the Central Labor Relations Commission to revoke the adjudication tribunal on unfair dismissal dismissal, as Seoul Administrative Court No. 2016Guhap2779, and the Plaintiff participated in the said lawsuit as an assistant intervenor by the chairperson of the Central Labor Relations Commission.

On November 3, 2016, the Seoul Administrative Court terminated the employment contract between the plaintiff and the defendant on November 3, 2016 when the National Labor Relations Commission makes a decision on the reexamination, and thereby the plaintiff's interest in remedy for the unfair dismissal has ceased to exist.

'The decision was rendered by the National Labor Relations Commission to cancel the review decision, and the decision became final and conclusive around that time.

A person shall be appointed.

2. The reasoning of the court’s assertion is stated in this part of the judgment of the court of first instance.

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is identical to the Plaintiff’s statement, and thus, this is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. We examine ex officio the validity of a request for confirmation of invalidity of dismissal among the instant lawsuits.

In a case where seeking confirmation of invalidity of dismissal for workers and claiming wages during the period of time during which workers could have provided work, it is obvious that the lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of dismissal is aimed at restoring the status under the labor contract between the company and the company, and thus, it is impossible to recover the status as an employee upon the lapse of the retirement age already set at the time of the closure of the fact-finding proceedings.