1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The intervenor is a company that ordinarily employs 56,000 workers and engages in automobile manufacturing and sales business, etc.

Plaintiff

A served on October 1, 1983; on February 24, 1979; on November 1, 1981; on November 1, 1981; on January 21, 1990, Plaintiff C joined the Intervenor company, respectively.

The Intervenor Company has the branch E of the F Trade Union E (hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted Trade Union”) and the F Trade Union G Branch (hereinafter referred to as “the instant trade union”). The Plaintiffs joined the instant trade union between March and May 2013.

B. On February 14, 1968, the Intervenor enacted the rules of employment applicable to the Intervenor’s entire employees (hereinafter “previous rules of employment”). On July 1, 2004, the Intervenor separately enacted the rules of employment for executive employees, which applies to the director of the general service division or higher, the number of research researchers or higher, and the number of employees higher than the production director (hereinafter “inter-executive employees”). Article 30 Subparag. 1 of the rules of employment for executive employees prescribed the retirement age of 58 years.

C. On December 31, 2013, when the Plaintiffs, an executive member, reached the age of 58, the Intervenor issued a full-time retirement assignment to the Plaintiffs pursuant to Article 30 subparag. 1 of the Rules of Employment of Executive Members.

(hereinafter “instant personnel order”) D.

Plaintiff

On March 10, 2014, A, C, and D claimed that the instant personnel order constitutes unfair dismissal and applied for unfair dismissal to the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission on March 10, 2014, and on March 10, 2014, respectively. The Plaintiff A, C, and D claimed that the instant personnel order constitutes unfair dismissal and applied for unfair dismissal and remedy to the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission on March 24, 2014, respectively.

On May 15, 2014, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for remedy against unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices by Plaintiffs A, C, and D, and the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission was unfair and unfair by Plaintiff B on June 9, 2014.