All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

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

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court did not properly reinstate the Plaintiffs.

issued to the department which is unable to produce the outcome or result;

Since it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiffs issued an unfair non-performance notice, it was determined that the Plaintiffs did not receive a low evaluation rating due to the Plaintiffs’ lack of performance or non-performance.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on abuse of discretionary power or by omitting judgment in the evaluation of personnel appeal.

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2, 3, and 4, the lower court determined that even if the amount of wages to be paid by the Defendant Company for the next one year was reduced, it cannot be deemed that it violated Article 95 of the Labor Standards Act, on the ground that the labor union, 255, a majority of 446 workers in general service of the Defendant Company, consented to the above Masp annual salary system by concluding a collective agreement including the provision of the Masp annual salary system with the Defendant Company, and thus, the above Masp annual salary system cannot be deemed as violating the requirements for disadvantageous revision of the rules of employment under Article 94(1) of the Labor Standards Act.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the court below's above determination is correct, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to disadvantageous changes in the rules of employment under the Labor Standards Act and sanctions under the Labor Standards Act.