1. On December 8, 2016, the Defendant’s dismissal disposition against the Plaintiff for correction of the tax base and amount of duty.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s raise in general service 1) The Plaintiff is a stock company B on February 4, 2002 (hereinafter “B”).

A) On January 1, 2008, the contractual workers who were fixed-term workers were employed as contract workers, and thereafter, they were transferred to indefinite contract workers who did not set the term of the labor contract. 2) On October 2013, 2013, the CFB B(hereinafter “Trade Union”) and B agreed to newly recruit the contractual workers as L0 by changing the class system from the former fourth class system (L0, 1, 2, 3, 4) to the five class system (L0, 1, 2, 3, and 4).

3) Accordingly, from November 29, 2013 to December 5, 2013, B offered internal recruitments for new L0-class recruitments for office employees. At that time, B notified the subjects to “B of the content that the continuous period of employment for applying retirement pay, etc., upon termination of the current employment contract, has not been included in the period of continuous employment for applying the retirement pay, annual leave, and other personnel systems, but the bank, if necessary, may establish separate operational criteria.” 4) The Plaintiff submitted the written consent for application for employment of L0 to B and submitted the written consent for employment, private staff, and new employment contract to adjust retirement pay according to the termination of the existing employment contract and raise it to L0 class regular employees.

At the time, the Plaintiffs submitted a written consent stating that “The continuous period of employment to apply the retirement allowance, annual leave, and other personnel systems, etc. shall be newly calculated from January 1, 2014, and the period of employment as an office shall not be included in the continuous period of employment under this Article, unless there is any separate provision or agreement on it.”

5) Even after the full-time conversion, the Plaintiffs continued to perform the same work at the same workplace as before the full-time conversion without any interruption of the work. B of the Plaintiff’s desired retirement 1) with the trade union.