1. All the claims of the plaintiffs A and B expanded from the plaintiffs' appeal and the trial court are dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a company running indoor play parks, a lot lot, etc.

Plaintiff

A and D were the vice head (class I in general position); Plaintiff B was the head of the team (class I in general position); Plaintiff F was the head of the team at the same place of business; Plaintiff B was the head of the same place of business (class II in general position); Plaintiff B was appointed at the same place of business (class II in general position); Plaintiff B was retired from office around May 201; Plaintiff D around August 2009; Plaintiff F retired from office around May 201.

B. Around May 2007, the Defendant: (a) made it possible for class 1 and class 2 members in general service to be appointed; (b) made class 1 to class 3 members in general service and class 3 members in special service available to be appointed in the position of appointment for which class 2 members in general service were appointed; and (c) made it possible for class 3 through 5 in general service and special service to be appointed in the position of class 5 in general service and class 1 to class 5 in special service and in the position of team members in which class 1 members in special service were appointed.

C. In addition, around May 2007, the Defendant prepared a proposal for the modification of the benefit system of the closed-end employee by providing 800% of the basic salary to the members of the second-class or higher (hereinafter “inter-class employee”) as bonus regardless of the personnel status, regardless of the fact that the Defendant paid 800% of the basic salary as bonus to the members of the second-class or higher (hereinafter “inter-class employee”) as bonus since 2008, to convert part of the bonus into performance bonus and

On May 25, 2007, the defendant held an explanatory meeting on the above "Criteria for Assignment of Position," and the "Proposal for Change of the Benefit System for Executive Members" with respect to executive members including the plaintiffs, and 64 of the total number of 74 executive members, including the plaintiffs, submitted a written consent to the defendant, signed on May 25, 2007, stating that "I fully know about the details of the amendment of the system improvement and related regulations in relation to the implementation of the "Standard for Assignment of Position" of the company and the "Proposal for Change of the Benefit System for Executive Members", and that I will express my consent as follows.

E. The defendant around June 2007.