1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are jointly and severally borne by the Plaintiffs.

1. The Plaintiffs were currently serving as professor of G University affiliated with the Defendant.

However, on July 25, 2017, the Defendant passed a resolution on the remuneration rules (hereinafter “instant remuneration regulations”) that greatly reduce the remuneration by opening the board of directors on the basis of the teachers’ voting.

After that, the defendant received a voluntary retirement application on September 25, 2017, and the plaintiffs who are likely to reduce the pension have voluntarily retired.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, purport of whole pleadings]

2. The cause of claim and the Plaintiffs asserted to the effect that the instant remuneration regulations are in violation of the Labor Standards Act, and thus, are invalid, and that the Defendant sustained damages that were not paid to the retirement age by committing an unlawful act causing the Plaintiffs to apply for the voluntary retirement, and that even if the voluntary retirement is valid, the calculation of the voluntary retirement allowance under the remuneration regulations of the instant case, which is null and void, rather than the voluntary retirement allowance under the previous remuneration regulations, is unlawful, and thus, the difference should be paid.

However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is unlawful with the instant remuneration provision.

It is difficult to deem that there is an error in calculating honorary retirement allowances.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims cannot be accepted, and it is so decided as per Disposition.