1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The relationship 1) Defendant Corporation was established for the purpose of preventing N’s risks and obstacles through the management, etc. of M testing, and is a commissioned-type quasi-governmental institution designated by the Minister of Strategy and Finance pursuant to the Act on the Management of Public Institutions. The Plaintiffs, who are currently or were in office and retired from the Defendant Corporation, were in office at least Grade IV and were in office around September 2015. The Defendant Trade Union was a trade union established around October 1, 2010 with employees belonging to the Defendant Corporation as its members, which was a trade union established around October 1, 2014. Around September 25, 2014, the Defendant Trade Union integrated “P Trade Union” with employees belonging to the Defendant Corporation as members of the police officers belonging to the O management body under the National Police Agency, whose status was converted from the employees belonging to the Defendant Corporation as of September 25,

As of September 25, 2015, Defendant K is the chairperson of the Defendant trade union, and Defendant L was the chairperson of the P trade union, and Defendant K was the co-chairperson of the Defendant trade union as of September 25, 2015 as of September 25, 2015 after the said trade union was integrated with the Defendant trade union.

3) Meanwhile, Plaintiff H, a police officer of the National Police Agency affiliated with the OO management body, applied for a conversion of status during the process of the abolition of the O management body and the transfer of the M examination to the Defendant Corporation, and was appointed as the employee of the Defendant Corporation from January 1, 2011 on the enforcement date pursuant to Article 6(2) and (3) of the Addenda of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 10790, Jun. 8, 201) and at the same time retired from police officers (such as this, the employee converted to the status as the employee of the Defendant Corporation from the O management body affiliated with the National Police Agency to the employee of the Defendant Corporation).

(B) The Plaintiff H was a person subject to the provision of retirement age (60 years of age) under the State Public Officials Act at the time of the above retirement pursuant to Article 6(4) of the Addenda since his appointment to the Defendant Corporation. B. Defendant 1 was the introduction process of the wage peak system of Defendant Corporation.