1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 1 and No. 2.

The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) was established on November 23, 200 and established on November 23, 200, and employs 2,456 full-time workers, and is an incorporated foundation engaged in the nationwide security and facility management business.

The plaintiff was employed by the intervenor corporation on January 1, 2001, and the plaintiff voluntarily retired on November 3, 2008, and then was employed as a security instructor in charge of the duties of security guards, etc. on January 11, 2010.

Article 23(1) of the Korean Act provides that the Plaintiff shall be subject to the retirement age limit on June 30, 2013 and the Plaintiff shall be subject to the retirement age of 58 years of age.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant retirement”); (b)

On July 19, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant retirement age constitutes unfair dismissal, and filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission (Seoul 2013rd Sea 2047). On September 11, 2013, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on the ground that the instant retirement age cannot be deemed unfair dismissal.

D. On October 2, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission (Central 2013rd Sea 870). On December 6, 2013, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the ground that the issuance of the instant retirement age was justifiable, as in the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, as in the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission.

(hereinafter “instant decision on review”) . 2. Summary of Plaintiff’s assertion

A. The intervenor did not hear the opinions of or obtain consent from the workers, including the plaintiff, in the process of enacting or amending the guidelines for the operation of security instructors (hereinafter referred to as "the operation guidelines of this case") five times as provided by the Labor Standards Act.

In addition, this shall apply.