1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) is a legal entity with the objective of population, encouragement of childbirth, mother and child health and gender culture, publicity, education, training, etc. incidental thereto, and the Plaintiff was enrolled in the Intervenor on November 4, 191 as C and served as a member of the Intervenor.

B. The Defendant’s personnel management regulations stipulate that the employee’s retirement age is set at 55 years of age, and that the employee’s retirement age is automatically retired on June 30 if the date on which he/she reaches the employee’s retirement age falls between January and June, and on December 31 if between July and December, respectively.

(Article 51). (c)

On December 22, 2015, the Intervenor notified the Plaintiff, who was of Grade III clinical History as of December 22, 2015, that “the date of issuance: December 31, 2015; the content of the issuance: the details of the order: the order of retirement.”

(hereinafter “instant notice”). D.

On January 4, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy with the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission to the effect that the instant notification constitutes an unfair dismissal. However, on March 11, 2016, the Plaintiff received a dismissal ruling, and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on April 7, 2016, but received a dismissal ruling on June 15, 2016.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). / [Grounds for recognition] The entry in Gap’s Evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul’s Evidence Nos. 1, 5, 6, and 7 and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that, although the Plaintiff consented to the application of the wage peak system under the premise of extension of retirement age, the Plaintiff’s notice of this case that the Plaintiff retired on December 31, 2015 is unlawful. Therefore, the instant decision of reexamination that did not accept the Plaintiff’s request for remedy should be revoked.

B. 1) The Defendant’s guidelines for the extension of the Defendant’s retirement age and for the operation of the wage peak system, which was enacted on November 18, 2008 and enforced on January 1, 2009 (hereinafter “Operational Guidelines”).

“Extension of retirement age” means any of the employees of class III or below.