1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

The court's explanation of this case is identical to the part concerning the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the part concerning which the plaintiffs' assertion as to this case is judged in this court, as stated in paragraph (2) below and paragraph (3) above, and therefore, it is acceptable to accept this case as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4

(Other, the grounds alleged by the plaintiffs in this court are not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance court, and even if all evidence submitted by the first instance court and this court are examined, the first instance court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims is justifiable). If the third part of the first instance judgment, the third part of the third part of the third part of the first instance judgment, which was used by the plaintiffs, shall be construed as “after the resolution of the defendant’s board of directors by the resolution of the board of directors by the defendant’s board of directors on September 23, 2009,” and the fifth part of the fifth part of the first instance judgment, "Nos. 1 through 11" was added as "Nos. 17, 13."

Part 5 of the first instance judgment, "In the case of Plaintiff B" shall be deleted.

Then, the part 7 of the judgment of the first instance is that the amendment of the remuneration provision of this case and the enactment of the annual salary system for the existing workers employed prior to the amendment is null and void, and the amendment of the rules of employment disadvantageous to the existing workers is made with respect to the wage system of the previous salary system, etc., and the application of the rules of employment different from each other in one workplace would result in the application of different contents of the rules of employment at one workplace. However, even in such a case, the discriminatory treatment of the working conditions prohibited under Article 6 of the Labor Standards Act shall not be deemed to fall under the category of discriminatory treatment.

No. 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance, "" was submitted, and the plaintiffs asserted that the above written pledge is invalid because they did not consent to the payment regulations of the defendant university at the time of the preparation of the above written pledge.