1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments in the statements in subparagraphs 2, 3, and 4 (including paper numbers), the Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant and served as an urban bus driver on April 2, 201 as B, was retired on May 31, 2014. The Plaintiff concluded an employment contract with the Defendant on an annual one-year basis from July 1, 2014 to serve as an urban bus driver, and then retired on June 30, 2017.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff did not assign urban buses that are exclusively operated, unlike other drivers who did not reach the retirement age while working on commission, while the Plaintiff worked on commission, provided discriminatory treatment, such as: (a) the Plaintiff did not leave the morning and assigned the Plaintiff a fee; and (b) the Plaintiff paid less than KRW 800,000 per month.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return to the Plaintiff KRW 28,800,000 (i.e., KRW 800,000 per month ¡¿ KRW 36 months from July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2017) as unjust enrichment, and to pay KRW 20,000,000 as consolation money for mental and physical suffering suffered by the Plaintiff due to discriminatory treatment.

B. In light of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 5 and 6, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant provided discriminatory treatment to the Plaintiff in relation to the working conditions solely with the statement No. 5.

In addition, Article 21 (2) of the Act on Prohibition of Age Discrimination in Employment and Elderly Employment Promotion provides that when an employer re-employed a retired person who is an aged person, the determination of wages may be different from the previous one by agreement between the parties.

Therefore, the Defendant, while employing the Plaintiff as a commission worker, set different wages from other workers, thereby making unjust enrichment equivalent to the difference.

It is difficult to deem that a tort was committed due to discriminatory treatment against the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's conclusion is that of this case.