1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall include all those resulting from the intervention.

1. Review of the record of recognition reveals the following facts. A.

Plaintiff

In accordance with Article 30 (1) of the Rules of Employment of Executive Officers and Employees (hereinafter referred to as “instant personnel order”), each retirement age of executive members (at least a general director, at least a research staff member, at least a production staff member, and at least a production staff member) was issued from the Intervenor on December 31, 2013, with the retirement age of the executive members (at least a general director, at least a research staff member, at least a production staff member), which stipulated the retirement age of 58 years.

B. Accordingly, on March 10, 2014, the Plaintiff, Appointed C, and D applied for remedy against unfair dismissal to the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, and applied for remedy against unfair labor practices on March 24, 2014 (Danhae Sea 689/Reno31), but the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission ruled to dismiss each of the above requests for remedy on May 15, 2014.

On March 10, 2014, B made an application for remedy against unfair dismissal to the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission on March 10, 2014, and applied for remedy against unfair labor practices on March 24, 2014, but the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission ruled that B dismissed the application for remedy from the designated parties B on June 9, 2014.

C. On June 2, 2014, the Plaintiff, Appointed C, and D filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on July 2, 2014, the designated parties B, who were dissatisfied with each of the above initial inquiry committees (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 14Da559, 667/Reno78, 97), but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for reexamination by the Plaintiff, etc. on August 8, 2014.

(hereinafter “instant decision on review”) D.

Plaintiff

The Seoul Administrative Court No. 2014Guhap16170 filed a lawsuit against the defendant (defendant) seeking the revocation of the instant decision on reexamination.

However, on October 22, 2015, the above court held that “The Rules of Employment of the executive members who provide for the retirement age of the executive members shall be valid, and this case’s personnel appointment shall not be deemed to constitute unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices, because it merely notifies the Plaintiff, etc. of the fact that the instant personnel appointment was retired in accordance with the Rules of Employment of the executive members.”