2017Na2016400 Demanding confirmation of retirement age

A

Seoul Matro

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Kahap562791 Decided April 14, 2016

Seoul High Court Decision 2016Na2025247 Decided September 2, 2016

Supreme Court Decision 2016Da249236 Decided March 9, 2017

April 11, 2017

May 16, 2017

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The defendant bears the total costs of the lawsuit after the filing of the appeal.

1. Purport of claim

It confirms that the retirement age of the plaintiff is up to B.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The reasoning of this court is as follows, except for adding the following judgments to the new argument made by the defendant in the trial after remanding, and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. The addition;

Even if the latter part of Article 55 of the Regulations on the Employment of the Aged is null and void in violation of Article 19 of the Act on the Employment of the Aged, the plaintiff's retirement age shall be H as of the actual date of birth. However, according to Article 32 of the Personnel Regulations of the defendant and the former part of Article 55 of the Regulations on the Enforcement of the Personnel Regulations, the retirement age of employees shall be 60 years, and the base date of the retirement age shall be December 31 of the year in which the retirement age reaches the retirement age. Thus, the defendant's above claim is groundless.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the ground of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just and the defendant's appeal is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.

Presiding Judge, Judge

Judges Hong-gu

Judges Cho Jae-he