1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff is an employee who was employed by the Defendant, and was unfairly dismissed on June 23, 2016, despite that the retirement age was on June 30, 2016.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the wages for seven days from June 24, 2016 to June 30, 2016, which is the day following the date of the dismissal as above, the amount equivalent to the wages for seven days from June 24, 2016 to June 30, 2016, the retirement allowances for one month (7 July 2016), and the amount equivalent to the wages for seven days from August 1, 2016 to October 12, 2016, which is the date of determination on the application for unfair dismissal.

B. The Plaintiff’s principal sought to retire as of June 23, 2016, and the Defendant did not make an unfair dismissal.

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s retirement age on June 23, 2016 while serving in the Defendant, and the fact that the Plaintiff’s retirement age on June 30, 2016 can be acknowledged by the entry of the evidence No. 3, or there is no dispute between the parties.

B. Furthermore, in full view of the following circumstances, as to whether the Plaintiff was subject to unfair dismissal from the Defendant, the evidence alone submitted by the Plaintiff is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant was unfairly dismissed, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

The plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

① As the Defendant newly provided B services from June 1, 2016, the Plaintiff succeeded to the employment of the Plaintiff, who was an employee of the Silsan Development Co., Ltd., and posted the Plaintiff as C members on the same day, and appointed a new employee D as the head of C head of the Ban. The Plaintiff resisted that D was appointed as the head of the Ban.

② On June 16, 2016 and December 23, 2016, the Defendant recommended that the Plaintiff “in accordance with the Rules of Employment, the Plaintiff would have arrived at the retirement age on June 30, 2016, applying for an extension of two years, as prescribed by the Rules of Employment.” However, the Plaintiff is so.