1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal, including the costs of supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the case being cited or added by the following parts, and thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts used or added;

A. On March 15, 2016, the second and seventh parts of the judgment of the first instance, “C” (hereinafter referred to as “C”) was written by adding “C” to “C (hereinafter referred to as “C”) and adding “the criteria for the treatment of re-employment of retired retirees” to “the criteria for re-employment of retired retirees” (hereinafter referred to as “the criteria for the treatment of re-employment of retired retirees”)” as “C (hereinafter referred to as “the criteria for treatment in this case”) as the criteria for the treatment of retired retirees,” respectively.

B. On the 3rd page 5 and 6 of the first instance judgment, the following parts shall be added, and on the 6th page “A 1, 2, 4, and 5,” the following shall be added.

D. Meanwhile, the Intervenor was merged with C on March 15, 2016 in the proceeding of the trial of the party.

C. On the fourth part of the judgment of the court of first instance, "the instant personnel order" in the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be construed as "the instant retirement order", "the witness" in the 6th, 5, 7th, and 6th part as "the witness of the court of first instance", and "this court" in the 7th part as "the court of first instance".

"Each testimony" in Part 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be added to "each testimony of the court of first instance" and "Written testimony of the witness of the court of first instance and the witness of the court of first instance".

E. On January 1, 2011, the first instance judgment No. 7, 9 and 10, “A status for which the retirement age was already extended as of January 1, 201, is somewhat doubtful,” and “K at the time, who was the head of the personnel team of C, was unable to be the head of the group by March 1, 1986, as the Plaintiff was a member of C in March 2009, thereby giving a new opportunity to the newly established company.