1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: (a) the "Evidence No. 32" of the 6th judgment of the court of first instance is cited as "Evidence No. 32-1 of the evidence No. 32; and (b) the following judgment is the same as the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition of the judgment at the court of first instance, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. The plaintiffs asserts that their status as additional decision-making items are moved from the defendant to D on September 2007, but thereafter moving from D to the defendant on August 2009 through the business transfer between the defendant, D, D, and the defendant, and that their employment relationship with the defendant was continued even during the period of moving to D, since their status as a temporary gap in performing their duties arises, depending on the defendant's situation, not their own intent.

However, the transfer of business refers to the transfer of functional assets as an organic integration organized for business purposes in a lump sum, while maintaining identity. Even if the plaintiffs submitted additional statements in Gap evidence Nos. 35,36 at the trial, there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the transfer of business between the defendant and D, D, and the defendant was conducted at each time, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the transfer of business was conducted between the defendant and the defendant. Furthermore, as seen in the above cited part, the Korea Electric Power Corporation introduced the limited competitive bidding system, and accordingly, the plaintiffs who were under the jurisdiction of the defendant were selected as the former defendant as the trustee company, such as inspection operations, etc., and the new consignment contract was prepared with D, and the latter was conducted as a result of the designation of the defendant in the subsequent bidding, so long as the plaintiffs were to prepare a consignment contract with the defendant and conducted the defendant's business under the jurisdiction of the defendant, the labor relations with the defendant continued during the period under the jurisdiction of D, but there is a temporary gap in performing the defendant's business.