Open Decision Ledger · Labour & industrial accidents
Retirement floor of 60 and an agreed extension tied to the employer's own rule
Supreme Court, Nov. 10, 2022, 2019Da282333 (judgment)
Case name: 근로자지위확인등[지방공기업과 근로자 사이에 위탁용역업체로의 전적 당시의 합의에 재고용의무가 포함되었는지, 「고용상 연령차별금지 및 고령자고용촉진에 관한 법률」(이하 ‘고령자고용법’이라고 함)의 적용범위 등이 문제된 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Does Article 19 of the Act on the Prohibition of Age Discrimination in Employment and the Promotion of Employment of Older Workers apply where a workplace has already set its retirement age at 60 or over, how is 'retirement age' computed, and how far does an agreement guaranteeing extended retirement run when the employer later extends the retirement of its own employees of the same birth year?
Holding
Whether a retirement system is set at all, and on what basis, is in principle for each workplace to decide. Article 19 of the Act on the Prohibition of Age Discrimination in Employment and the Promotion of Employment of Older Workers requires the employer to set retirement at 60 or over, deems an age below 60 to be 60, and makes a contract, employment rules or collective agreement fixing retirement below 60 void to that extent; retirement age is computed on the actual date of birth. Because Article 19 is a mandatory rule fixing the floor at 60, it does not apply where a workplace's retirement age is already 60 or over. Here Plaintiffs 2, 8 and 14, born in the second half of 1956, had more than two years of retirement left when they transferred, so the agreement added three years; the amended personnel rules had already extended the 1956-born retirement to 30 June 2016, and the agreement added three years to that date, giving 30 June 2019 rather than each plaintiff's 63rd birthday, so the lower court misread the law on retirement age.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
갑 등의 정년은 개정된 인사규정에 따른 을 공사의 1956년생 직원들의 정년 퇴직일에 3년을 더한 날인 2019. 6. 30.까지로 연장되었다고 봄이 타당하고, 위와 같이 2019. 6. 30.까지로 연장된 정년은 모두 60세를 초과하므로 고용상 연령차별금지 및 고령자고용촉진에 관한 법률 제19조에 위반되지 않을 뿐만 아니라 달리 위 약정이나 개정된 인사규정이 갑 등에 대한 관계에서 무효라고 볼 수도 없는데도
Unofficial English translation
the mandatory retirement age of A et al. may reasonably be regarded as having been extended until June 30, 2019, which is the date obtained by adding 3 years to the mandatory retirement date of Corporation B's employees born in 1956 under the amended personnel regulations, and the mandatory retirement age extended until June 30, 2019 as aforesaid all exceed 60 years of age, so that it is not only not contrary to Article 19 of the Act on Prohibition of Age Discrimination in Employment and Aged Employment Promotion, but the foregoing agreement and the amended personnel regulations cannot otherwise be regarded as void in relation to A et al., and yet
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 원고 2, 원고 8, 원고 14의 2019. 7. 1. 이후의 임금 상당 손해배상 청구 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다. 피고의 원고 2, 원고 8, 원고 14에 대한 나머지 상고와 나머지 원고들에 대한 상고를 모두 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
Of the judgment of the court below, the portion of the claim for damages equivalent to wages of Plaintiff 2, Plaintiff 8, and Plaintiff 14 for the period after July 1, 2019 is reversed, and the case concerning this portion is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The remainder of the defendant's final appeals against Plaintiff 2, Plaintiff 8, and Plaintiff 14, and the final appeals against the remaining plaintiffs, are all dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
고용상 연령차별금지 및 고령자고용촉진에 관한 법률 제19조는 ‘정년의 하한’을 60세로 정하는 강행규정으로, 개별 사업장의 정년이 60세 이상으로 정하여진 경우에는 적용되지 않는다.
Unofficial English translation
Article 19 of the Act on Prohibition of Age Discrimination in Employment and Aged Employment Promotion is a mandatory provision that sets the 'lower limit of the mandatory retirement age' at 60 years of age, and does not apply where the mandatory retirement age of an individual workplace is set at 60 years of age or older.
Factors
- 정년 제도의 설정 여부나 기준 등은 원칙적으로 개별 사업장마다 자율적으로 정할 수 있다.
- 근로자의 정년을 60세 미만이 되도록 정한 근로계약이나 취업규칙, 단체협약은 위 규정에 위반되는 범위 내에서 무효이고
- ‘정년’은 실제의 생년월일을 기준으로 산정하여야 한다.
- 갑 등이 병 회사로 전적할 당시 을 공사의 정년이 2년 이상 남아 있었으므로
Unofficial English translation
• Whether to establish a mandatory retirement system, and its criteria and the like, may in principle be determined autonomously by each individual workplace.
• Labor contracts, rules of employment, or collective agreements that set the mandatory retirement age of employees at less than 60 years of age are void to the extent contrary to the foregoing provision, and
• the 'mandatory retirement age' must be calculated based on the actual date of birth.
• at least 2 years remained until the mandatory retirement age of Corporation B at the time A et al. transferred to Company C,
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2018. 11. 29. 선고 2018두41082 판결(공2019상, 177), 대법원 2019. 3. 14. 선고 2018다269838 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2018Du41082 pronounced November 29, 2018 (Gong 2019 Sang, 177); Supreme Court Decision 2018Da269838 pronounced March 14, 2019
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2018. 11. 29. 선고 2018두41082 판결(공2019상, 177), 대법원 2019. 3. 14. 선고 2018다269838 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If the employer later amends its rules to shorten the retirement of the same birth year, does the agreed three-year extension follow that date downwards?
The remand judgment of the Seoul High Court on wage-equivalent damages for the period after 1 July 2019 will show how the extended retirement date was applied to each plaintiff. Any amendment to Article 19 of the Act, or to the enforcement timing set for local public enterprises under Article 49 of the Local Public Enterprises Act in the Supplementary Provisions of 22 May 2013, would call for this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 6 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Elements stated” vs Independent “Existing test applied”
The primary sets out the legal rules first and then applies them, labeled as a requirement statement, while the independent reading focuses on application to the facts, so they differ on how the standard is framed.
갑 등의 정년은 개정된 인사규정에 따른 을 공사의 1956년생 직원들의 정년 퇴직일에 3년을 더한 날인 2019. 6. 30.까지로 연장되었다고 봄이 타당하고Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “If the employer later amends its rules to shorten the retirement of the same birth year, does the agreed three-year extension follow that date downwards?” vs Independent “How should a comparable retirement-extension agreement operate if its resulting retirement date falls before an employee's sixtieth birthday?”
The primary asks whether the three-year extension moves downward if the employer later shortens the same birth-year retirement. The independent asks how such an agreement works when the retirement date falls before the employee's 60th birthday.
갑 등의 정년은 개정된 인사규정에 따른 을 공사의 1956년생 직원들의 정년 퇴직일에 3년을 더한 날인 2019. 6. 30.까지로 연장되었다고 봄이 타당하고, 위와 같이 2019. 6. 30.까지로 연장된 정년은 모두 60세를 초과하므로 고용상 연령차별금지 및 고령자고용촉진에 관한 법률 제19조에 위반되지 않을 뿐만 아니라 달리 위 약정이나 개정된 인사규정이 갑 등에 대한 관계에서 무효라고 볼 수도 없는데도Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 24 September 2019 (2018Na2058524), found an agreement under which the employer guaranteed extended retirement, roughly 60 to 80 per cent of its own pay for the extended period, and the plaintiffs' status and employment. It read the agreement to cover expiry of the outsourcing contract, so the defendant had to reemploy the plaintiffs from 1 October 2016 until each retirement date and to pay wage-equivalent damages, and rejected the defendant's defence seeking return of the severance payments. For Plaintiffs 2, 8 and 14, born in the second half of 1956, it took retirement as the 63rd birthday in 2019, because the agreement added three years to the retirement of employees of the same birth year.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error in the reading of the agreement, including its finding that the agreement covered expiry of the outsourcing contract, and none on the reemployment duty, the severance payments or the alleged refusal by plaintiffs born after 1956. It corrected only the retirement date of Plaintiffs 2, 8 and 14: the amended personnel rules had already set their retirement at 30 June 2016, so the three years added by the agreement ran from that date, giving 30 June 2019; every date so extended exceeds 60, so Article 19 was not breached. Since their retirement had not yet passed when argument closed on 25 June 2019, accepting their claim for employment was right in conclusion although the reasoning was somewhat inappropriate, so the appeal succeeded only as to wage-equivalent damages after 1 July 2019, which was reversed and remanded.
Distinguishing conditions
- A workplace whose retirement age is set below 60, because Article 19 deems that age to be 60 and a rule fixing it below 60 is void to that extent.
- An employer that never amended its rules to extend the retirement of the birth year in question, so that there is no extended date for the agreed three years to run from.
- A retirement system computed otherwise than by the actual date of birth, since the Court held that the actual date of birth is the basis.
Record verification notes
Collect the transfer recruitment notice and explanation materials, the wording of the extended-retirement agreement, and the amended personnel rules with their supplementary provisions fixing the retirement date for the birth year, since the answer turns on all three together. Then set the close-of-argument date against the retirement date, as the Court separated the period before and after 1 July 2019, and confirm that every date reached by the extension exceeds 60 years of age.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 근로자의 정년을 60세 미만이 되도록 정한 근로계약이나 취업규칙, 단체협약의 효력(=고용상 연령차별금지 및 고령자고용촉진에 관한 법률 제19조에 위반되는 범위 내에서 무효) 및 이때 ‘정년’을 산정하는 기준(=실제의 생년월일) [2] 고용상 연령차별금지 및 고령자고용촉진에 관한 법률 제19조가 개별 사업장의 정년이 60세 이상으로 정하여진 경우에도 적용되는지 여부(소극) [3] 1956년 하반기 출생자인 갑 등이 2012년 을 공사에서 병 주식회사로 전적할 당시 을 공사의 인사규정에 따른 정년은 만 58세였고, 을 공사가 ‘전적 시 정년이 2년 이상 남은 사람은 정년이 3년 연장되어 만 61세가 정년이 되며, 전적 후 을 공사의 정년이 연장될 경우 추가 연장된 정년만큼 을 공사가 고용을 보장한다.’는 취지로 약정하였으며, 그 후 을 공사는 인사규정을 개정하여 직원의 정년을 만 60세로 변경하면서 1956년생은 2016. 6. 30. 퇴직한다고 정하였는데, 위 약정에 따라 보장되는 갑 등의 정년이 문제 된 사안에서, 갑 등의 정년은 개정된 인사규정에 따른 을 공사의 1956년생 직원들의 정년 퇴직일에 3년을 더한 날인 2019. 6. 30.까지로 연장되었다고 봄이 타당하다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Effectiveness of labor contracts, rules of employment, or collective agreements that set the mandatory retirement age of employees at less than 60 years of age (= void to the extent contrary to Article 19 of the Act on Prohibition of Age Discrimination in Employment and Aged Employment Promotion) and the criterion for calculating the 'mandatory retirement age' at this time (= actual date of birth) [2] Whether Article 19 of the Act on Prohibition of Age Discrimination in Employment and Aged Employment Promotion applies even where the mandatory retirement age of an individual workplace is set at 60 years of age or older (negative) [3] A case in which, when A et al., who were born in the second half of 1956, transferred from Corporation B to Stock Company C in 2012, the mandatory retirement age under Corporation B's personnel regulations was 58 years of age, and Corporation B agreed to the effect that 'a person who has at least 2 years remaining until the mandatory retirement age at the time of transfer shall have the mandatory retirement age extended by 3 years so that the mandatory retirement age becomes 61 years of age, and if the mandatory retirement age of Corporation B is extended after the transfer, Corporation B shall guarantee employment for the period of the additionally extended mandatory retirement age,' and thereafter Corporation B amended its personnel regulations to change the mandatory retirement age of employees to 60 years of age while providing that those born in 1956 shall retire on June 30, 2016, and in a case where the mandatory retirement age of A et al. guaranteed under the foregoing agreement was at issue, it was held reasonable to regard the mandatory retirement age of A et al. as having been extended until June 30, 2019, which is the date obtained by adding 3 years to the mandatory retirement date of Corporation B's employees born in 1956 under the amended personnel regulations
Summary of the holding
[1] 정년 제도의 설정 여부나 기준 등은 원칙적으로 개별 사업장마다 자율적으로 정할 수 있다. 다만 2013. 5. 22. 개정(지방공기업법 제49조에 따른 지방공사에는 2016. 1. 1.부터 시행)된 고용상 연령차별금지 및 고령자고용촉진에 관한 법률 제19조에 의하면, 사업주는 근로자의 정년을 60세 이상으로 정하여야 하고(제1항), 사업주가 근로자의 정년을 60세 미만으로 정한 경우에는 정년을 60세로 정한 것으로 간주되므로(제2항), 근로자의 정년을 60세 미만이 되도록 정한 근로계약이나 취업규칙, 단체협약은 위 규정에 위반되는 범위 내에서 무효이고, ‘정년’은 실제의 생년월일을 기준으로 산정하여야 한다. [2] 고용상 연령차별금지 및 고령자고용촉진에 관한 법률 제19조는 ‘정년의 하한’을 60세로 정하는 강행규정으로, 개별 사업장의 정년이 60세 이상으로 정하여진 경우에는 적용되지 않는다. [3] 1956년 하반기 출생자인 갑 등이 2012년 을 공사에서 병 주식회사로 전적할 당시 을 공사의 인사규정에 따른 정년은 만 58세였고, 을 공사가 ‘전적 시 정년이 2년 이상 남은 사람은 정년이 3년 연장되어 만 61세가 정년이 되며, 전적 후 을 공사의 정년이 연장될 경우 추가 연장된 정년만큼 을 공사가 고용을 보장한다.’는 취지로 약정하였으며, 그 후 을 공사는 인사규정을 개정하여 직원의 정년을 만 60세로 변경하면서 1956년생은 2016. 6. 30. 퇴직한다고 정하였는데, 위 약정에 따라 보장되는 갑 등의 정년이 문제 된 사안에서, 갑 등이 병 회사로 전적할 당시 을 공사의 정년이 2년 이상 남아 있었으므로 위 약정에 따라 갑 등의 정년은 3년 연장되었고, 이후 을 공사의 인사규정이 개정되면서 을 공사의 1956년생 직원들의 정년이 2016. 6. 30.까지로 연장됨으로써 위 약정에 따라 갑 등의 정년은 재차 을 공사의 1956년생 직원들의 정년이 연장된 것과 동일한 기간만큼 연장되었으므로, 갑 등의 정년은 개정된 인사규정에 따른 을 공사의 1956년생 직원들의 정년 퇴직일에 3년을 더한 날인 2019. 6. 30.까지로 연장되었다고 봄이 타당하고, 위와 같이 2019. 6. 30.까지로 연장된 정년은 모두 60세를 초과하므로 고용상 연령차별금지 및 고령자고용촉진에 관한 법률 제19조에 위반되지 않을 뿐만 아니라 달리 위 약정이나 개정된 인사규정이 갑 등에 대한 관계에서 무효라고 볼 수도 없는데도, 갑 등의 정년이 만 63세가 되는 2019년의 각 출생일까지라고 본 원심판결에 법리오해의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례.
Order
원심판결 중 원고 2, 원고 8, 원고 14의 2019. 7. 1. 이후의 임금 상당 손해배상 청구 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다. 피고의 원고 2, 원고 8, 원고 14에 대한 나머지 상고와 나머지 원고들에 대한 상고를 모두 기각한다. 원고 2, 원고 8, 원고 14를 제외한 나머지 원고들과 피고 사이에 생긴 상고비용은 피고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
Of the judgment of the court below, the portion of the claim for damages equivalent to wages of Plaintiff 2, Plaintiff 8, and Plaintiff 14 for the period after July 1, 2019 is reversed, and the case concerning this portion is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The remainder of the defendant's final appeals against Plaintiff 2, Plaintiff 8, and Plaintiff 14, and the final appeals against the remaining plaintiffs, are all dismissed. The appeal costs arising between the defendant and the remaining plaintiffs other than Plaintiff 2, Plaintiff 8, and Plaintiff 14 shall be borne by the defendant.
Provisions referred to
[1] 고용상 연령차별금지 및 고령자고용촉진에 관한 법률 제19조, 부칙(2013. 5. 22.) 제1호 [2] 고용상 연령차별금지 및 고령자고용촉진에 관한 법률 제19조 [3] 고용상 연령차별금지 및 고령자고용촉진에 관한 법률 제19조
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger