The judgment of the first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant is the appellate court of the attached Table 1. The defendant's judgment against the plaintiff (appointed party).

1. The reasoning for this part of the reasoning is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part of the reasoning is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant changed the wage system after the year of 199 to the annual salary system that reflects the results of professors’ immediately preceding years from the existing salary system, but this is not only without the resolution of the board of directors, but also null and void since it did not obtain the consent of a majority of workers by collective decision making even though it was disadvantageously modified in the rules of employment. Thus, the previous salary system applies to the Plaintiff and the designated parties. 2) Even if the resolution of the board of directors is valid, the Plaintiff A was appointed after the implementation of the annual salary system, but there is no reason to receive equal treatment with the professors appointed before the implementation

In addition, even if the annual salary system is applied to the plaintiff A, the defendant has a right to receive the benefits based on the salary table of the professor of the state and public university, since the defendant has to evaluate the low performance only for the plaintiff A without any reasonable reason and based on other reasonable criteria.

3) Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff and the designated parties a difference between the amount of benefits based on the salary table of professors of the State and public universities from the year 2011 to the year 2013 (main claim) or the amount of benefits actually paid, based on the salary table of professors of the State and public universities in 201 or the salary table of teachers in 2006 (preliminary claim) equivalent to the difference between the amount of benefits reflecting the inflation rate in the above period and the amount of benefits actually paid. (B) The Defendant’s assertion 1) that the Defendant changed the benefit system from salary system to the annual salary system in the salary system in the salary system in the board of directors was resolved by the board of directors, and even if it is null and void without obtaining a consent from a majority of teachers, the Teaching Council in July 15, 2010 and the Teaching Council in February 5