1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiffs were employed from July 30, 1972 to May 1976 by the Plaintiff as a member of the trade union after becoming a member of the Contact Korea Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”).

B. The plaintiff D was dismissed on July 15, 1982, and the remaining plaintiffs were dismissed on July 23, 1982 with the closure of the company of this case.

C. (1) On October 201, the Plaintiffs filed an application with the Defendant for restoration of honor and living allowances for persons related to democratization movements on the ground that “A person who was convicted of, or was subject to a bachelor’s degree of punishment on the grounds of democratization movements” under Article 2 of the Act on the Restoration of, and Compensation to, Persons Related to Democratization Movements (hereinafter “Act on the Compensation for Democratization Movement”).

(2) On October 24, 201, Plaintiff A, C, and E received a decision to recognize a person related to a democratization movement on the grounds that “the person was found guilty on the grounds of a democratization movement pursuant to Article 2 subparag. 2 (d) of the Democratic Compensation Act” from the Defendant on October 24, 201, but did not have been recognized as being detrimental to a democratization movement.

(3) On October 24, 201, Plaintiff B and D received a decision of non-recognition of persons related to democratization movements on the grounds that the Defendant was “not recognized as a position related to democratization movements.”

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case") among the decisions to recognize the persons related to the democratization movements against Plaintiffs A, C, and E, the part related to the democratization movements, Plaintiffs B, and D.

On September 10, 2012, the Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the request for review. However, on the grounds that “the closure of the instant company is considered as the closure of business to adapt to the market change due to business reasons, and it is difficult to view it as a forced dismissal due to forced closure of business due to forced closure of business, and it is difficult to view it as a forced dismissal due to forced closure of business due to the lack of grounds to regard it as the intervention of public authority or disguised closure of business

[Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, 14, 16 (including paper numbers), and Eul No. 1.