All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant.

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

1. Regarding the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal

A. Whether the consent of contract-based employees is necessary (1) This part of the grounds of appeal on this case’s supplementary provision is that the judgment of the court below which rejected the Plaintiffs’ assertion that Article 2(1) of the Addenda of the Defendant’s Wage Regulation amended on October 1, 2007 (hereinafter “the supplementary provision of this case”) of the supplementary provision of this case’s need for consent by contract-based employees’ collective decision-making process (hereinafter “this case’s consent”) is unlawful.

(2) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the reasoning of the first instance judgment partially admitted by the lower court, and the evidence duly admitted, the following facts are revealed.

(A) Article 7(1) of the Defendant’s Remuneration Regulations and Article 42(2) of the Personnel Regulations (hereinafter “instant Rules of Employment”) provide that a public enterprise’s work experience, etc. shall be recognized as 100% when determining the starting salary for employees in general service who are regular employees.

The instant provision of the Rules of Employment stipulates the method of calculating the starting salary in cases where the Defendant individually employs the relevant non-regular employees to be in general service pursuant to Article 15(1)7 of the Rules of Employment whenever personnel management needs arise. As such, the government’s “comprehensive measures for non-regular workers in the public sector” (hereinafter “government’s comprehensive measures”) was prepared on August 8, 2006, and the Act on the Protection, etc. of Fixed-term and Part-Time Workers (hereinafter “fixed-term Act”) was enforced before it was enacted on December 21, 2006, including the content of deeming the non-fixed-term workers to be workers who have concluded a labor contract for more than two years.

(B) On the other hand, this case’s supplementary provision is a non-regular worker according to the government’s comprehensive measures.