1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the decision by reexamination are the same as that of the judgment by the court of first instance, and thus, this part of the decision is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. On the premise that the collective agreement concluded in 2014 between the intervenor and the FF Trade Union E branch (hereinafter “Nonindicted Trade Union”) applies to the plaintiffs, the intervenor asserted that the intervenor applied the rules of employment for executive members with the retirement age set at 58 years old unlike the above collective agreement and applied the rules of employment for executive members with the retirement age set at 58 years old, and sought revocation of the instant decision made by the National Labor Relations Commission that did not accept the request for remedy by asserting that the order of the personnel management of this case constitutes unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices, the intervenor asserted that the plaintiff's retirement age had already been set at the retirement age of the plaintiffs, and therefore, there is no legal interest in seeking revocation of the instant decision made by the reexamination.

B. In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the evidence Nos. 10 and 6 evidence Nos. 10 and 6 (including branch numbers where there are branch numbers), the collective agreement concluded between the intervenor and the non-party trade union in 2014 provides that “the retirement age of a member shall be the last day of the year in which he/she reaches 58 years of age: Provided, That the retirement age may be extended for one year when he/she wishes to do so and there is no reason for disqualification for health, respectively, on the last day of the year in which he/she reaches 58 years of age and the last day of the year in which he/she reaches 59 years of age.”

According to the above facts of recognition, the above collective agreement of the non-party trade union in 2014 applied to the plaintiffs as alleged by the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs' retirement age was extended twice.

Even if the plaintiffs' retirement age is the last day of the year when they reach 60 years of age, the plaintiffs' retirement age will be December 31, 2015.

However, this case.