1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall include all the parts resulting from the participation.

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiffs citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified even if the parties' claims are examined by adding the evidence submitted to the court of first instance to the

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal of part of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance or supplementation of such judgment as stated in the following Paragraph 2. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420

2. Pursuant to paragraph 11 of the 4th 11th page of the content to be removed or supplemented, the phrase “A evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, and Eul evidence 5” shall be written “A evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1, 5, 6, 9, 12 (including the number of pages 2, 2, 11, 14, 5 Eul evidence, 5, 5, 6, 9, 12 (including the number of pages), 1, and H testimony”.

The following contents shall be added after the "I am" in the 10th sentence of the fifth:

“The interpretation of the expression of intention clearly establishes the objective meaning that the parties have granted to the act of expressing the intent. Although the phrase used in the document is not subject to the expression used in the document, the objective meaning that the parties have given to the act of expressing the intent should be reasonably interpreted according to the contents of the document regardless of the party’s internal intent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da118, May 10, 2007). The plaintiffs may have known that the submission of the letter of resignation in this case would not want to resign or would have been expected to return the letter of resignation as a matter of course. However, the objective reasonable meaning of the letter of resignation in this case is interpreted to mean that the plaintiffs would resign on the date of the submission of the letter of resignation, and such expression of intent is effective even if the plaintiffs knew that the letter of intent in this case is not an intention (Article 107(1) of the Civil Act, however, the plaintiffs expressed their intention of resignation in this case.