beta
Text
1. The judgment of the first instance, including the plaintiffs' claims expanded by this court, is modified as follows.
Reasons
1. Determination on this safety defense
A. The defendant's assertion that, since the plaintiff C reached the retirement age of 58 years of age on December 31, 2014, the plaintiff C has no interest in filing a lawsuit to seek nullification of dismissal.
B. In a case where a voluntary retirement disposition against a judgment worker is deemed an actual dismissal and claims wages during the period during which the worker could be provided with labor, it is obvious that the lawsuit to confirm the invalidity of dismissal is aimed at restoring the status under the employment contract between the defendant and the defendant. Thus, it is impossible to recover the status as an employee if the retirement age, which is the inevitable ground for dismissal under the personnel regulations of the defendant, has already been attained at the time of the closure of the fact-finding proceedings, it is impossible to recover the status as an employee.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da57362 Decided July 22, 2004, etc.). Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments in the statement No. 5-1 and No. 2, Article 19-1 and 19-2 of the Defendant’s Rules of Employment provide that “the employee’s retirement age shall be 55 years old and shall be retired at the end of the month concerned, and in the case of production, it shall be governed by a collective agreement at each place of business, and in the case of production, it shall be governed by a separate agreement at each place of business.” ② Article 29 of the Defendant’s collective agreement explicitly states that “the employee’s retirement age shall be the end of the year in which he reaches 58 years of age,” and ③ Plaintiff C died on November 4, 2017 after his retirement age on December 31, 2014, and it is recognized that the heir took over the lawsuit.
In addition to the above legal principles in light of the above facts, the lawsuit of this case on the claim for nullification of dismissal of Plaintiff Q, R, S, and T (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff Q, etc.”) which is the party to the lawsuit of the network C is deemed unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.
Therefore, the defendant's main defense pointing this out is justified.
2. As to this part of the basic facts by the Court.