Of the part against the Defendant of the lower judgment, the part against Plaintiff A, B, C, F, and Plaintiff I is reversed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal

A. As to the assertion on the collective agreement, which serves as the basis for calculating accrued wages, the lower court determined that the resolution on the appointment of executive officers in the second general meeting resolution is not null and void, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, and that the collective agreement in 2010 which the Defendant entered into with an O trade union whose structural form was changed (hereinafter “instant collective agreement”) and the subsequent collective agreement (hereinafter “instant collective agreement, etc.”) are all valid, and thus, the unpaid wages during the instant disciplinary period should be calculated based on the instant collective agreement, etc.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal doctrine and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the validity of Article 18 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, the general meeting of labor unions, the validity of collective agreement, and the interpretation of the

B. As to the assertion regarding the retirement age of Plaintiff A, Plaintiff C, Plaintiff F, and Plaintiff I (hereinafter “Plaintiff A, etc.”), the lower court acknowledged the fact that (1) the retirement age of workers prescribed by the collective agreement from July 1, 2010, when the instant collective agreement was enforced at the Defendant’s workplace to December 31, 2015, before the collective agreement was enforced in July 1, 2010 to December 31, 2014, was 58 years old, and on the other hand, there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant, during the said period, did not have agreed to maintain an employment relationship until the employee reaches 60 years of age; (2) rejected this part of the allegation by the Plaintiff, etc., and on this premise, calculated the wages (excluding special performance bonus) not paid by the Plaintiff, etc. from June 1, 2011 to the age limit of 58 years prescribed by the collective agreement.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal disputing the fact-finding, which is the basis of the judgment of the court below, is a substantial evidence belonging to the free trial of the fact-finding court.