beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the Defendant and the Intervenor are dismissed.
2. The portion resulting from the participation in the appeal costs.
Reasons
The court's explanation of this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment of the intervenor in the trial under Paragraph (2) below to the judgment of the intervenor in the trial, and thus, it is also acceptable in accordance with Paragraph (2) of Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of
(1) In addition to the part to be determined by paragraph (2) below, the grounds alleged in the trial by the Defendant and the Intervenor are different from the contents indicated in the first instance trial. However, considering all the evidence additionally submitted in the first instance and the first instance trial, it is not different from the fact-finding and judgment of the first instance court. The Intervenor’s assertion on additional determination whether there is a legitimate expectation right to renew the labor contract to the Plaintiffs, there is no room for recognizing the renewal right to the Plaintiffs who already reached the retirement age at the time of termination of the labor contract in this case. Even if the right to renew the labor contract in this case is recognized, the trust relationship between the parties at the time of termination of the labor contract was already damaged due to the Plaintiffs’ failure to perform the basic labor provision specified in the
The Intervenor’s refusal of the renewal of the instant employment contract is legitimate, and the duties of the COS management team, to which the Plaintiffs are affiliated, need high level of physical strength, and thus, the Plaintiffs, who are older workers, did not have to take charge of the pertinent duties.
In addition, due to the Haddrhea, the affairs of the above COS management team are re-entrusted to the external company, and the intervenors need to manage the reduction of the prescribed number and the termination of the labor contract with the plaintiffs.
Therefore, the intervenor made best efforts to ensure that the plaintiffs succeed to the employment of the above company, but did not comply with the plaintiffs' rejection.
Therefore, the rejection of the renewal of the contract of this case is justifiable for reasonable grounds.
part.