(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.02.06 2014가합44227

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.02.06 2014가합44227

퇴직조치무효확인

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is an organization established for the purpose of running a private taxi transportation business entity’s common interest business.

Article 43 of the Personnel Management Regulations (hereinafter “the instant provision”) provides for the retirement age system for the employees under his control. The said provision sets the retirement age for the employees of Class 1 A and Grade 1, by classifying the retirement age by class, 58, and 55, in the case of other employees.

B. On January 1, 1987, the Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant-affiliated Financial Cooperative and was employed as a class 2 employee, applied the age limit of 55 and was treated as retirement on May 21, 2014.

C. The defendant has been operating the classes of employees by classifying them into classes 1 through 7, and the positions of each class are as listed below:

Therefore, a class 2 or lower employee is unable to perform the duties of the head of the headquarters or the head of the site of the branch, but when the class 1 employee is insufficient to perform the duties, the class 2 employee was in charge of the relevant duties in the form of acting for him/her.

(A) On September 2012, 2012, the defendant ordered C, who is a class 2 employee, to act on behalf of the head of the D Site site, or ordered E, who is a class 2 employee, to act on behalf of the head of the headquarters at around November 201 of the same year, to act on behalf of the head of the headquarters F.). The head of the former head of the team head of the former head of the headquarters at least Grade 1 to Grade 3 (the head of the headquarters and the head of the center shall

D. G, an employee of the Defendant, filed a petition with the National Human Rights Commission on the grounds that the instant provision is discriminatory provision, and thus, on June 22, 2009, the National Human Rights Commission decided to recommend the Defendant to amend the said provision on the ground that “the instant provision whose retirement age was differentiated by class constitutes a discriminatory act with no reasonable grounds related to employment.”

G alleged as the instant provision that “The Defendant suffered damages, etc. equivalent to the lost income due to his early retirement,” and filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for damages.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.02.06 2014가합54361

-서울고등법원 2020.07.17 2019나2038909

-대전지방법원 2018.05.09 2017가합100547

-서울행정법원 2016.06.10 2015구합77974

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.09.21 2016가합544158