beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
Judgment of the first instance.
Reasons
1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: the 6th and the end of the trial of the first instance; the 6th and the 12th of the 6th and the 12th of the 6th and the 12th of the 6th are as follows; all other plaintiffs are as "Plaintiff"; all other plaintiffs are as "Plaintiff"; the 3rd and 7th of the 3rd are as "intermedian members"; the 4th and 3rd of the 4th and the 8th of the 3rd are as "eight (including each number); and the 9th of the 3rd and the 9th of the same month" and the 420th of the 6th and the 6th of the 1st trial are as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional matters to be determined;
A. The court shall recognize the existence and content of the expression of intent indicated in the document, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof evidence that denies the contents of the document, so long as a disposition document, such as the binding rule or the rules of employment, as to whether to amend the rules of employment disadvantageously, is recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da48489, Jun. 14, 2007). In light of these legal principles, unlike the judgment in the above cited part, even if the Plaintiff submitted each of the statements under Articles 13 through 17 submitted at the trial in light of these legal principles, it is insufficient to regard the instant provision as a binding rule or the amendment under the provision in this case as an unfavorable amendment to the rules of employment, and it cannot be found any other evidence that can be recognized otherwise. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for the continued trial of this part cannot be accepted.
B. The Plaintiff, even if the instant provision is a discretionary provision, asserts that the Plaintiff’s failure to extend the retirement age to the Plaintiff would violate the right to equality and the principle of protecting trust. However, the written evidence No. 15, No. 13-1, and No. 13-2 are compared to the Defendant’s other persons who reached the retirement age as the Plaintiff’s retirement age.