1. The Defendant’s dismissal against the Plaintiffs around November 8, 2015 confirms that the dismissal is null and void.

2. The Defendant shall start on November 9, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. The parties concerned are companies running a general education institute in the Daeyang-si’s name “F” (hereinafter “Defendant-private teaching institute”). Plaintiff A is an English instructor of the Defendant’s private teaching institute from November 23, 2008 to November 8, 2015; Plaintiff B is the Korean instructor of the Defendant’s private teaching institute from November 30, 2007 to November 8, 2015; and Plaintiff C is an instructor of the Defendant’s private teaching institute from November 30, 2010 to November 30, 2015; and Plaintiff C works as a scientific instructor of the Defendant’s private teaching institute from November 30, 2010 to November 8, 2015 (hereinafter “instant dismissal”).

B. The Defendant Private Teaching Institutes established and operated a preliminary high class 1, 2, and 3, a wind school for the students of trees, a wind school for the students of trees, and a regular high class school for the students of trees from February 1 to November 2, and the special class classes, police groups, and military academy for the students of trees from February 2, 200.

C. 1) The Plaintiffs did not prepare a written contract, unlike the general staff working at Defendant Private Teaching Institutes, and did not enter into a contract for lectures with Defendant Private Teaching Institutes. 2) The Plaintiffs, as an instructor of the comprehensive team of Defendant Private Teaching Institutes, continued to reach an answer to questions by up to 21:30 of the students, during the eight-six-day lecture hours, following the schedule of lecture set by Defendant Private Teaching Institutes, which led from 09:0 to 18:00, pursuant to the hours of lecture set by Defendant Private Teaching Institutes, as an instructor of the August Private Teaching Institutes, the Plaintiffs were subject to an answer to inquiries by up to 21:30 of the students.

3 regardless of the increase or decrease of the students of the lecture in charge of them, the Plaintiffs received the amount equivalent to the monthly fixed number of lecture hours multiplied by the hourly lecture fee, and the Plaintiffs also received the special lecture, and the Plaintiffs paid 50% of the total special lecture fees multiplied by the number of students by the number of students in the relevant special lecture.