1. The Defendant and the Intervenor’s Intervenor’s appeal are dismissed.

2. The appeal cost arises between the plaintiffs and the defendant.

1. The court's explanation concerning this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following portions written by the court of first instance. Thus, the court's explanation concerning this case is acceptable as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. At the bottom of the 12th judgment of the court of first instance, 4,5 (Judgment as to the existence of reasonable grounds) shall be made as follows.

B) The Intervenor asserts that “The Intervenor has a reasonable reason to refuse the renewal of the instant employment contract with the Plaintiffs, inasmuch as the Intervenor’s employment contract under the rules of employment expired, the retirement age of seafarers constitutes 57 years of age and the Plaintiffs’ working attitude was not good.”

Article 12 subparag. 3 of the Intervenor’s Rules of Employment (No. 3) provides for the Intervenor’s retirement age as 57 years of age (Article 12 subparag. 3). However, even after retirement age, the Intervenor was entitled to employ a certain period of time as a commissioned employee according to circumstances (Article 13). In fact, even after retirement age, there is a trust relationship that the employment contract is renewed when certain requirements are met after retirement age, and the Plaintiffs’ right to renewal of the employment contract in this case is recognized.

According to the evidence Nos. 5-1 and 5-2, the plaintiffs' work performance rating was not good at the time when they work for N Co., Ltd., but the date of preparation and evaluation of each work performance rating for the plaintiffs, and the period of evaluation of the plaintiffs' work performance rating for the plaintiffs is not confirmed during the contract period of this case (the plaintiff's work performance rating for the plaintiffs is written on January 1, 2012) and the plaintiff's work performance rating for the plaintiffs during the contract period of this case is not included in the evidence Nos. 5-1 and 5-2 are found to be not good for the plaintiffs to be employed during the contract period of this case with the intervenor.