1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall include costs resulting from the participation.

1. Circumstances of decision to dismiss the request for examination of petition;

A. The party status 1) The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”)

(2) In order to achieve the above establishment purpose, H, which is “Variouss of schools” under Article 2 subparag. 7 of the Higher Education Act, and “cyber college-type lifelong educational establishment” under Article 33(3) of the Lifelong Education Act, was established and operated. (2) The Plaintiffs were serving as H’s associate professor or assistant professor, and were dismissed from the Intervenor on June 30, 2014.

B. 1) The Minister of Education, Science and Technology succeeded to human resources development policies, school education, lifelong education, and academic affairs among the duties of the Minister of Education, Science and Technology pursuant to Article 29(1) of the Government Organization Act (amended by Act No. 12114, Dec. 24, 2013) and Article 3 of the Addenda.

The Minister of Education shall not distinguish before and after the succession of the above duties.

[2] On May 21, 2012, from May 21, 2012 to June 5, 2012, the Intervenor issued an integrated audit with respect to the Intervenor, and on November 2012, the Intervenor ordered correction of 42 cases in relation to social status, 9 administrative measures, and 6 cases in relation to financial measures. 2) On April 26, 2013 following the resolution of the board of directors, the Intervenor filed an application for authorization with the Minister of Education for the Minister of Education’s pneumoconiosis with respect to the Intervenor on May 29, 2013. The Minister of Education authorized the Intervenor to abolish H on August 31, 2013, and H was abolished on August 31, 2013.

3. On August 23, 2013, the intervenor notified 12 H teachers and staff, including the plaintiffs, of the termination of the appointment contract according to H school, and the plaintiffs filed a petition for appeal review against the termination disposition of the above appointment contract and filed a petition for appeal review with the defendant. On November 13, 2013, the defendant did not undergo a resolution by the board of directors at the time of notifying the termination of the above appointment contract.