1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a school foundation that establishes and operates H University, and the Plaintiffs, as full-time faculty members of H University, have been appointed as Plaintiffs A, B, C, D, and E as associate professors, and Plaintiff F as assistant professors.

B. On December 30, 2013, the Defendant amended the articles of incorporation, the main purpose of which is to reduce the employment period of associate professors as stipulated in Article 44(2)2(a) of the Articles of incorporation from six to three years, and the employment period of assistant professors as stipulated in “B” from three to two years (hereinafter “instant articles of incorporation”).

C. Plaintiff A, B, C, D, and E were reappointed as an associate professor for three years in accordance with the instant articles of incorporation from March 1, 2014 to February 28, 2017. Plaintiff F was reappointed as an assistant professor for two years in accordance with the instant articles of incorporation from March 1, 2015 to February 28, 2017.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 4, Eul Nos. 1 and 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiffs’ assertion is invalid for the following reasons.

1) There is no reasonable ground for the Defendant to reduce the term of appointment, and if the Defendant reduced the term of appointment of associate professors and assistant professors due to the amendment of the articles of incorporation, the rules on the evaluation of reappointment and promotion of faculty members, which stipulate the criteria for evaluation of teaching career during the term of appointment (hereinafter “the rules on the evaluation of appointment”).

(2) The defendant did not go through legitimate procedures for the resolution of the board of directors necessary for amending the articles of incorporation, although he did not change the evaluation elements of the rules on the evaluation of reappointment to a reasonable extent according to the reduction ratio of the term of appointment.

3. That the defendant reduced the employment period of the plaintiffs through the revision of the articles of incorporation is disadvantageous to the employment rules concerning working conditions.