1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following matters to the final conclusion of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional parts of the trial;

E. In the case of a party branch, the Plaintiff asserts that, in light of the circumstances that the Plaintiff had worked as the Defendant’s faculty member for 10 months to 2 months after the expiration of the initial term of appointment, the term of appointment between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is merely the form of a new employment contract, and all of the employment contracts concluded thereafter do not constitute a new employment contract, and the revised terms of the remuneration of the faculty member disadvantageous to the Plaintiff during the continuous term of employment are null and void, the Defendant should pay the difference of wages, etc. in accordance with the previous provision

Although the rules of employment were not effective in relation to existing workers because they failed to obtain consent from the workers, the revised rules of employment should apply to the relationship with the workers who accepted the working conditions and acquired the employment relationship pursuant to the revised rules of employment.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da17468 Decided June 28, 2012 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da17468, Jun. 28, 201). As seen earlier, ① the Plaintiff was appointed as a full-time lecturer on March 1, 1994 and was appointed as an associate professor on April 1, 2004 after the Plaintiff was appointed as an associate professor on October 1, 1997; ② the Defendant’s salary regulations for the teaching staff are amended on March 1, 2006 when the Plaintiff was in the position of associate professor; ③ the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the appointment of associate professor on September 1, 2010 (or June 26, 2011) with the Defendant, respectively.

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the above contract for the appointment of associate professors (or June 26, 201) on September 1, 2010 and the contract for the appointment of associate professors on May 1, 2013 are all concluded.