1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant established and operated E schools which are “Various kinds of schools” under Article 2 subparag. 7 of the Higher Education Act and F universities which are “cyber college-type lifelong educational facilities” under Article 33(3) of the Lifelong Education Act. The Plaintiffs are teachers working as assistant professors of E schools.

B. The Minister of Education, Science and Technology, as a result of a comprehensive audit on the Defendant in 2012, ordered the Defendant to take corrective measures such as 42 cases of social status, 9 administrative measures, 6 cases of financial measures, etc.

The defendant applied for the authorization of the pneumoconiosis of the E school following the resolution of the board of directors, and on May 29, 2013, the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology abolished the E school on August 31, 2013.

C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiffs filed an application for reappointment on or around May 2013, as the faculty appointment contract terminates on August 31, 2013.

On June 3, 2014, the president of E/L notified G, the chairperson of E/L and the faculty member of E/L evaluation committee, that “The results of the E/L evaluation committee on teachers’ occupation and occupation are not met, and thus it is not re-appointed as a result of the examination of the results of the examination of the E/L evaluation committee on the plaintiffs, and thus, he/she is not re-appointed. Therefore, he/she receives an application for reexamination and an explanation to supplement the evaluation of his/her achievements to give an opportunity for reexamination and reports the results after deliberation by the E/L evaluation committee.”

G on June 18, 2014, the president reported that “Article 12(2) of the Regulations on the Evaluation of Teachers’ Status provides that “The teachers subject to re-employment evaluation shall meet the minimum level of points and the total minimum level of points for each area,” but this should be interpreted as not the average of the evaluation results for two years of service, but the combined points, and accordingly, the number of points necessary for re-employment is sufficient.”

E. However, the Defendant, following the resolution of the board of directors on June 26, 2014, against the Plaintiffs on June 30, 2014.