1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part on which the Defendant seeks confirmation of invalidation under Article 18(1) of the Defendant’s Service Regulations is dismissed.

2...

The plaintiffs are the grounds for the determination of the claim for the payment of the agreed amount, and they received the transportation subsidy and vehicle maintenance expenses from the defendant while the plaintiffs were in office as professors at the E University operated by the defendant. The defendant asserts that, around December 2011, the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology agreed that the payment of the agreed amount should be made to the plaintiffs because the defendant collected the vehicle maintenance expenses already paid from the plaintiffs for three years (Plaintiff A: 5,953,00, Plaintiff B: 2,269,000, Plaintiff C: 1,915,000, which were recovered from the plaintiffs in the course of recovering the vehicle maintenance expenses for three years, and thus, the above agreed that the amount of the vehicle maintenance expenses recovered to the plaintiffs should be returned again.

However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the testimony of Gap 1 through 9, 16, 18, and 19 (including virtual numbers) and witness F by itself agreed that the defendant would return the amount equivalent to the vehicle maintenance cost recovered to the plaintiffs, and since there is no other evidence to support this, the plaintiffs' assertion is not acceptable.

The defendant shall establish and operate a school juristic person which establishes and operates an E University, and the plaintiffs shall be teaching staff working at E University upon entering into a labor contract with the defendant, and the plaintiffs shall be appointed as teaching staff at E University.

Plaintiff

A was first appointed on March 1, 1995 and appointed as professor on October 1, 2008, and Plaintiff B was first appointed on March 1, 1994 and appointed as professor on April 1, 2007.

(However, on June 18, 2012, the defendant C, who is a professor, was retired from office. On June 18, 2012, the defendant corporation decided to amend Article 18 of the E University Service Regulations as follows:

[Details of Amendment to Article 18 of the Regulations on Official Duties] Article 18 (Public Official Overseas Business Travel) (1) after the amendment, teachers and staff on official duties.