The plaintiff is appointed as professor at the C University around 1995, and the defendant is a corporation that establishes and operates C University.

In March 31, 2014, while the defendant suffered financial difficulties due to the reduction of the number of students, the financial status of the defendant has deteriorated due to the embezzlement of D president who was appointed on March 31, 2014.

On November 15, 2016, the president of Cuniversity, who was requested by the Defendant’s board of directors to submit a budget bill on the accounts for school expenses, reflecting the reduction of personnel expenses, presented a plan to reduce wages in 2016 by convening the faculty’s meeting (hereinafter “the first meeting”) and some of the faculty members were posted. On November 28, 2016, the teachers’ meeting (hereinafter “the second meeting”) was held on November 28, 2016, and the said meeting was held on December 5, 2016.

At the above opening meeting, E, as determined by the coefficient Adjustment Deliberation Committee on November 29, 2016, which was held to determine a specific rate of wage reduction, set the reduction rate for each group by classifying the groups of school personnel according to the amount of wage and setting a different rate for each group (which appears to be the group to which the Plaintiff belongs. It appears to be the group to which the Plaintiff belongs. The 19%, B group 16%, C, and D group 8.5%) was carried out, and was planned to demand a written consent.

The Defendant did not obtain a written consent from the Plaintiff on the unpaid benefits, etc.

However, the amount of wages to be reduced by applying a certain rate of wage reduction to the total annual amount of wages as well as other faculty members who agreed to do so is determined, and the amount was not deducted or paid as a refund of contributions and teachers' research subsidies. If the sum of the amounts falls short of the amount of wages to be reduced calculated above, the remainder is from November 2016 to January 2017.