1. The defendant is the plaintiff A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, H, K, K, M, M, N, P, Q, Q, Q, T, U, V, X, Y, Z, AAB, AC, AC, AD, AE, AF, and AG.

1. Basic facts

A. From April 1, 2010 to March 31, 2013, the Defendant entered into a contract for cleaning services with the Gwangju Regional Procurement Service and the Jeonnam University (hereinafter “instant cleaning services”) each year with a term of contract one year, starting from April 1, 2010 to a three-year period of contract.

B. The Plaintiffs are workers who were engaged in cleaning and mination as U.S. dollarss at Jeonnam University, and the Defendant and the Defendant each year for a period of three years from April 1, 2010 to March 31, 2013.

4.1.1. to 1.0

3. From April 1, 201 to March 31, 201, the term “the term of the contract” in the first-year term of the contract is “the term of the contract from April 1, 2010 to March 31, 201”; the term “the term of the contract from April 1, 2011 to March 31, 2012”; and the term “the three-year term of the contract from April 1, 201 to March 31, 2013” means “the term of the contract” in the second-year term of the contract.

The "labor contract of this case" that is concluded by the plaintiffs below the labor contract every year with the defendant is called the "labor contract of this case".

Among the plaintiffs, there are workers who did not provide labor during the school period by excluding part of the summer and winter vacation period at the time of concluding a labor contract from the contract period. [The grounds for recognition: the fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 10-2, Eul evidence 10-2, Eul evidence 34 to 36 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. In the event that the Plaintiffs’ assertion period expires, the number of years of continuous employment should be determined by adding up the same period, and even if there exists a period of absence, such as vacations between repeated employment contracts, this is merely merely an agreement on leave of absence according to the nature of the business, and thus, it cannot be deemed that labor relations have been severed. Thus, the continuity of labor relations should be deemed as maintaining during the academic period.

Therefore, the plaintiffs.