The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Whether interest in confirmation is recognized (Ground of appeal No. 1)

A. The grounds for termination of an employment contract can be divided into retirement, dismissal, automatic extinguishment, etc.

Retirement is a worker's intention or consent, and dismissal is a unilateral intention against the worker's will, and automatic termination is automatically terminated regardless of the worker's or the employer's will.

The dismissal under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act refers to the termination of all labor contract relations which fall under the second, regardless of the name or procedure which is actually disadvantageous to the workplace.

Even if an employer determines the occurrence of a cause as a reason for ipso facto retirement and the procedure is different from that of ordinary dismissal or disciplinary action, it should be deemed that the employer unilaterally terminates a labor relationship regardless of the employee’s will is subject to restrictions as stipulated in the Labor Standards Act by nature.

In such cases, a worker may file a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of his/her ipso facto retirement against the employer on the ground that there is no justifiable ground provided in Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 92Da54210 delivered on October 26, 1993, etc.). Meanwhile, a lawsuit for confirmation is permitted to eliminate risks or apprehensions in relation to the present rights or legal status. However, in a case where the past legal relations affect the present rights or legal status, and it is deemed as a valid and appropriate means to obtain a judgment on confirmation of such legal relations in order to eliminate risks or apprehensions in relation to the present rights or legal status, there is benefit in confirmation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da36407 Decided October 14, 2010, etc.). B.

The judgment below

The reasons and records reveal the following facts.

(i).