2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. The Plaintiffs are the employees working at the Taeduk University operated by the Defendant.

B. On May 23, 2006, the Labor Relations Commission concluded a collective agreement in 2006 with the following content. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 18787, May 23, 2006>

Article 96 (Improvement of Private School Pension System) The Koduk University shall prepare a new improvement proposal in December 2006 by a labor-management agreement so that private school pensions can maintain equity in legal retirement allowances and retirement allowances.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant collective agreement clause”). C.

On May 2, 2007, the Defendant was scheduled to pay 20% of the individual contributions for private school pension to the Innnet of Taeduk University from March 2007, and the Defendant was publicly notified that 10% of the individual contributions will be to be borne by the Defendant since 2011.

On March 25, 2008, the Defendant was scheduled to pay 40% of the individual charges to the relevant Indiannet from March 2008, and 20% of the individual charges to be paid to the Defendant each year from March 2001, and 100% of the individual charges to be borne by the Defendant since 2011.

(hereinafter “each of the instant notifications”) D.

The Defendant paid 20% of the individual charges to the employees belonging to the Defendant, from March 2007 to February 2, 2008, from March 2008 to February 2009, from March 2008 to February 2009, 60% of the individual charges from March 2009 to February 2010, and 80% of the individual charges from March 201 to February 201.

On the other hand, the Defendant paid 80% of the individual charges as school expenses, contrary to the content of each public notice of this case, that the Defendant shall pay 100% of the individual charges for business difficulties from March 201 to December 2011.

E. On May 201, the Minister of Education: (a) conducted an audit of the accounting division for the Defendant; and (b) demanded the Defendant to prohibit the Defendant from paying the individual contributions.

The defendant shall pay individual contributions to his/her employees on the ground of the result of the audit of the part of accounts on January 2012.