1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claim extended in the trial are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal and the costs of appeal shall be considered in the trial.

1. The reasons why the court accepted the judgment of the court of first instance are the same as that of the part corresponding to the plaintiff among the reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall accept it pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the

[Plaintiff as the cause of claim in this case, the Defendant did not accept the Plaintiff’s application for the voluntary retirement. ① In relation to the implementation of the voluntary retirement at issue in this case, it goes against the contents and intent of the agreement between the Defendant and the trade union in this case, and ② the developments and purport up to the implementation of the voluntary retirement, and ② the reasons and purport up to the voluntary retirement, equity with other employees who approved the application for the voluntary retirement, motive for applying for the Plaintiff’s voluntary retirement, health conditions, etc.

The first instance court argued to the effect that the Plaintiff’s voluntary retirement is “A person who does not wish to make a voluntary retirement against his/her will”. As asserted by the Plaintiff, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant is limited to the fact that the agreement between the labor and management at the time is “A person who does not wish to make a voluntary retirement” in relation to the instant voluntary retirement, and that the Defendant’s waiver of the right to approve the application for the voluntary retirement and application for the voluntary retirement, and there is no evidence to support that the Defendant exercised its discretion by deviating from a reasonable scope in the process of deliberation and decision on the Plaintiff’s application for the voluntary retirement.

On the other hand, while the defendant is deemed to have a reason and circumstance to refuse the plaintiff's application for voluntary retirement, it does not seem that there are any special illegal or unfair circumstances.

The Plaintiff’s assertion was rejected as a whole.

The plaintiff argues that it is basically the same in the first instance court.