All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant joining the Defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, comprehensively taking into account the correction procedures prescribed by the Act on the Protection, etc. of Fixed-Term and Part-Time Workers (hereinafter “ Fixed-Term Act”), it shall be deemed that the correction benefits for a fixed-term worker seeking correction of discriminatory treatment do not extinguish solely on the ground that the period of his/her employment contract expires at the time of filing a request for correction or even during

(see Supreme Court Decision 2014Du43288, Dec. 1, 2016). Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined to the effect that the Plaintiffs and the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”)’s labor contract relationship had already been terminated prior to the instant decision on retrial does not extinguish the benefits of the Plaintiffs’ petition for correction of discrimination.

Examining the records in accordance with the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

In addition, there was no error by misapprehending the legal principles on the interest in remedy for the corrective procedure under the Fixed-term Act.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, based on its reasoning, the lower court determined as follows: (a) the relevant regular workers in the position of director and the relevant Plaintiffs’ performance; (b) the relevant regular workers in charge of administrative affairs and the relevant Plaintiffs’ performance; and (c) the relevant regular workers and the relevant Plaintiffs’ performance of duties; (b) there are somewhat differences in the scope of, responsibility, and authority over, the relevant regular workers and the relevant Plaintiffs’ performance of duties; (c) however, the relevant regular workers and the relevant Plaintiffs’ performance of duties do not have any essential difference in the content of the main duties, and thus, determined that the relevant regular workers’ G, H, R, S, X, Z, AB, Y, Q, and

Examining the records in accordance with the relevant legal principles, the lower court’s aforementioned.