beta
Text
1. The Intervenor’s appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are borne by the Intervenor joining the Defendant.
purport.
Reasons
The court of the first instance’s explanation concerning this case is to change “ September 12, 2012.” The fifth part of the judgment of the first instance to “ February 19, 2012.” The following is identical to the grounds of the first instance judgment, except for adding a judgment on the intervenor’s assertion in the trial under Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, this is to be cited as it is in accordance with the reasoning of the first instance judgment.
(A) The grounds alleged in the trial during the appeal by the Intervenor do not differ significantly from the contents of the Intervenor’s assertion in the first instance trial, and even if all evidence presented in the first instance and the first instance trial are examined, the judgment of the first instance, which accepted the Plaintiff’s assertion, cannot be interpreted disadvantageously to workers. As such, Article 86(2) of the Rules of Employment of the Plaintiff requires review procedures compared to Article 17 of the collective agreement, and Article 86(2) of the Rules of Employment of the Plaintiff is unfavorable to the subject without strengthening the requirements for retirement age extension and providing a deemed system, and thus, the content of Article 86(2) of the Rules of Employment of the Plaintiff should not be taken into account when determining whether a “voluntary labor”, which is a requirement for extending retirement age as provided in the collective agreement, is unreasonable. Article 17 of the collective agreement, in principle, should be interpreted as not extending
However, since the intervenor refused to renew the retirement age and did not provide the plaintiff with unfaithful labor as much as he/she would dismiss, the retirement age was automatically extended in accordance with Article 17 of the collective agreement and practice, and the labor contract relationship remains in existence. However, on May 30, 2015, the plaintiff notified the intervenor of the termination of the labor relationship and unilaterally terminated the labor relationship without justifiable grounds, which is unfair dismissal.
Judgment
A collective agreement providing for the retirement age of members.