The judgment of the Supreme Court came out that the provisions of the Employment of the Elderly Act, which sets the retirement age at 60, means that “the retirement age must be at least 60 years old.” The purpose is that it only applies to cases where the retirement age is set at less than 60, and not where the retirement age is set at 60 or over.
The second division of the Supreme Court (President Judge Min Yoo-sook) announced on the 27th that Mr. A and others reversed the court’s original ruling in favor of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit to confirm the status of an employee filed against the High Seoul Transportation Court and the case returned to the Seoul High Court. However, it was mainly reserved for the purpose of the lower court ruling.
Mr A, who was doing light maintenance work for trains at the former Seoul Metro (now Seoul Transportation Corporation), moved to a freight company in 2011 as the work was outsourced. As they moved, they entered into an agreement with Metro that guaranteed a number of conditions. Even if the freight company goes bankrupt or the employment contract is terminated, Metro guarantees employment, and the retirement age is extended by two to three years more than age regular retire Metro.
Later, when the Guui Station screen door accident occurred in 2016, Seoul Transportation Corporation changed the light maintenance business from load to direct management. The load contract between the load company and the construction was terminated, and Mr. A and others were also dismissed from the tribe company. However, the corporation did not re-employ Mr A and others for the reason that they were ‘Mefia (Metro + Mafia)’. In response, Mr. A and others filed legal proceedings against the Corporation for re-employment obligations and for unpaid wages for the period of non-re-employment.
The first, second and third trials ruled in favor of the plaintiff. At the time of moving to a freight company, according to the agreement with Metro, Metro had to re-employ Mr A and others, and it was decided that Metro’s successor, the Transport Corporation, would succeed him.
The court held that the retirement age of Mr A and others should be extended to 62 to 63 years. This is because in 2014, the corporation’s retirement age increased from 58 to 60, and the agreement included an extension of 2 to 3 years. The Older People’s Employment Act states the retirement age as ’60’, but this only means ‘the minimum retirement age is 60’, and does not apply to workplaces that set the age retire at 60 or older.
However, the Supreme Court struck down only this part, saying there was an error in the lower court’s ruling on the retirement age of some plaintiffs. According to the corporation’s personnel regulations, it was deemed that the retirement age was not until each plaintiff’s birthday, but until June 30 of the year the retirement age is reached.