The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to Article 19 of the Act on Prohibition of Age Discrimination in Employment and Elderly Employment Promotion (hereinafter “the Elderly Employment Act”), an employer shall set the retirement age of workers at least 60 years (Paragraph 1). If an employer sets the retirement age of workers at below 60 years of age, the retirement age shall be deemed set at 60 years of age (Paragraph 2). Therefore, a labor contract, employment rules, or collective agreement setting the retirement age of workers at below 60 years of age is null and void to the extent that it violates the above provision.

In addition, the "retirement Age" should be calculated on the basis of the actual date of birth.

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that ① the date of birth on the Plaintiff’s family register was registered as “D” and accordingly, the date of birth on the Plaintiff’s family register was recorded as “D”; ② the Plaintiff received a decision to permit the correction of the date of birth on the family register from “D” to “E” from the court on July 19, 2013; ③ on August 22, 2013, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to correct the resident registration number and the scheduled date of retirement on the Plaintiff’s family register to the above changed date of birth; but the Defendant refused such request based on the personnel regulations (amended as of December 17, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply) and personnel regulations (amended as of June 13, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply); ④ the Defendant’s employees’ retirement age under Article 32(1) of the Personnel Management Regulations were “within 60 years,” and the Plaintiff’s retirement age under Article 53(1) of the Personnel Management Regulations submitted as of the date.