1. The part against the plaintiffs in the judgment of the court of first instance which exceeds the following amount ordered to be paid.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation as to this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for cases of dismissal or addition as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, this is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. In the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, the “determination on the cause of the claim” in Part 13 under the 5th Table of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed to be “effective of the instant retirement age provision”, and the sixth part of the second part shall be deleted from the “case” to the 17th part, and the “determination on the Defendant’s argument” in Part 18 shall be deemed to be the “determination on the Defendant’s argument on the date of retirement”.

Part 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be 9 to 10 pages 8 as follows.

Considering the above evidence and the whole purport of the arguments, it is reasonable to view that the retirement date of the plaintiffs is the date of birth of the plaintiffs who have reached the age of 60,00, respectively, and the defendant's above assertion is reasonable.

① Since Article 19(1) of the Act on the Employment of the Aged, which stipulates that a local government-invested public corporation under Article 49 of the Local Public Enterprises Act, including the Defendant, shall be at least 60 years old, entered into force on January 1, 2016, the Defendant’s labor and management, to the extent that it does not conflict with the said provision after the enforcement of Article 19(1) of the Act on the Employment of the Aged, was able to autonomously set the reasonable retirement age standards, etc. for the employees of 1955 who were anticipated to be retired until December 31, 2015, pursuant to the former retirement age regulations, from 1955 to 195

② Accordingly, the Defendant’s labor and management agreed to extend the retirement age gradually to one year, one year and six months for employees in 1955, and two years for employees in 1957, respectively, and the retirement age for employees in 1957. The employees who were born thereafter agreed to extend the retirement age from 58 to 60 years by allowing all of them to retire at the end of December of the year when they turn 60.

(3)