1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Intervenor A was E, the Intervenor B was F, the Intervenor C was Ged and the Intervenor D was Hed by the Intervenor C.

B. Seoul Qro decided to extend the retirement age to 58 years of age at the time of the so-called “IMF foreign exchange crisis” by step, and concluded a collective agreement with the purport that on December 17, 2013, workers who were employed in December 1955 until December 31, 2014, workers who were employed in the year 1956 until June 30, 2016, workers who were employed in the year 1957 extended their respective retirement age by December 31, 2017, and those who were employed in the year 1957 after December 31, 2017 were to comply with relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and subsequently revised the retirement age under the personnel regulations at 60 years of age.

(see Article 32 of the Personnel Management Regulations).

In accordance with the above collective agreement on June 29, 2016, Seoul metro issued a “ipso facto retirement notice” to the effect that the employment contract is terminated on June 30, 2016 to the workers of 1956, including supplementary intervenors, pursuant to the said collective agreement (hereinafter “instant notice”). D.

The Intervenor, at the time of June 30, 2016, had not yet reached the age of 59 as of June 30, 2016, which was determined as the date of retirement, filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission No. 2016, Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission (Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission) by asserting that the instant notification was made before the age of 60 and that it constitutes unfair dismissal.

On September 7, 2016, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted an application for remedy by supplementary intervenors on September 7, 2016, on the ground that the instant notice constitutes unfair dismissal, on the ground that it would cause workers who were at 60 years of age under the Act on Prohibition of Age Discrimination in Employment and Elderly Employment Promotion (hereinafter “the Elderly Employment Promotion Act”).

The Seoul metro filed an objection to the review by the Central Labor Relations Commission No. 2016, 1151, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for review on January 12, 2017 (hereinafter “instant review decision”).

(e).