1. Defendant who exceeds the following money among the part against the Plaintiffs in the judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance is modified as stated in paragraph (2) below; and (b) the Defendant’s application for the return of provisional payment is added as stated in the part against the Plaintiffs among the reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (c) thus, it is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. Parts 8, 8, 1 to 3, as follows:

As long as the instant retirement age provision is null and void, the Plaintiffs’ retirement age is the date of each birth in 2016. Thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiffs wages and retirement allowances that would have been additionally paid if the Plaintiffs worked until their birth in 2016.” On the 8th page 12 of the “A. Effect of the instant retirement age provision”

The 9th page 2 from the 11th page to the 11th page 21 are as follows.

Article 19(2) of the Elderly Employment Act provides that the retirement age shall be set at 60 years of age in such cases. As such, the retirement age of an employee born during the second half of 1956 shall be deemed the date of birth in 2016 (see Supreme Court Decision 2018Da269838, Mar. 14, 2019). As to this, the Defendant asserts that, notwithstanding Article 19 of the Act on the Employment of the Aged, where the retirement age is set through a labor-management agreement, such as a collective agreement, pursuant to Article 4-5 subparag. 3 of the same Act, it is permitted to set the retirement age under 60 years of age. In light of the legislative purpose, form, etc. of the Act on the Employment of the Aged and the Elderly, Article 4-5 of the same Act is merely the purport that the retirement age is prohibited by Article 4-4 of the same Act, and Article 19 of the same Act, which is a mandatory provision, shall not be excluded. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.