1. On July 20, 2018, the Defendant’s disposition to pay each of the subsidies to the Plaintiffs is revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff A is C, the plaintiff B is a worker who is employed in E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "E bank") with D students.

B. On September 7, 2015, E Bank introduced a wage peak system in which wages are reduced from January 1 of the year in which an employee reaches 55 years of age through labor-management consultation, and the Plaintiffs were subject to the wage peak system since January 1, 2016.

C. The Plaintiffs filed an application with the Defendant for the payment of the wage peak system under Article 23 of the Employment Insurance Act and Article 28-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, but the Defendant, on July 20, 2018, issued each of the subsidies site payment (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiffs on the ground that “if a person subject to the wage peak system prior to the age of 55 includes a person subject to the wage peak system prior to the age of 55, it shall not be deemed that the system for the reduction of wages after the age of 55 as stipulated in Article 28-2 of the Enforcement Decree

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2-2, Gap evidence 3-1 and 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiffs asserted that the instant disposition should be revoked on the following grounds.

1) Considering the language and text of Article 28-2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act and the legislative purport and purpose of the provision of the subsidies for wage peak system, it should be deemed that the payment of subsidies under the above provision should also be made in cases where the system was implemented to reduce wages from 55 years of age, such as the wage peak system introduced by an E bank. (2) Even though the Defendant had been granted subsidies to employees in financial power since 2005, refusing to pay subsidies to the Plaintiffs would violate the principle of trust protection and equality.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. As a matter of principle, the law No. 1 is against many and unspecified persons.