1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. The facts under the basis of facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be found in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 17 (including the number of pages; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Eul evidence No. 1, taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings. A.

Plaintiff

B entered D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “D”) around May 1990.

Plaintiff

A A was employed and worked for E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “E”) on September 1991 and was dismissed on December 31, 1997.

B. D and E were merged into F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) on June 30, 200.

C. After that, the plaintiff A received the judgment of nullification of dismissal and returned to F on January 4, 2004.

Plaintiff

B was dismissed from the F on March 31, 2004.

E. F changed the trade name of the Defendant Company on June 27, 2005.

F. After that, the plaintiff B was judged to the effect that the above dismissal was unfair, and the plaintiff B was reinstated on November 1, 2005 to the defendant company.

G. On March 31, 2012, Plaintiff A retired from office at Defendant Company on March 31, 2012, and Plaintiff B is working for Defendant Company.

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. After the plaintiffs were reinstated, in order to find the plaintiffs in the defendant company, the defendant company did not properly restore them to the defendant company by allowing them to be in charge of duties other than those entrusted by the plaintiffs at the time of dismissal, and issued as an agent partnership of the AM Business Headquarters, which is a department which is not able to produce the result, or issued as an area not subject to the plaintiffs' annual notification, or issued as an area other than the plaintiffs' annual notification. After that, the plaintiffs granted C or D grade which is the lowest evaluation grade for the plaintiffs' business performance on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to obtain the results, and accordingly, the annual salary of the plaintiffs was decided or reduced each year, and the calculation

In addition, the defendant company's Mapo annual salary system was implemented since 2007, which made it possible to reduce the annual salary of grade D to a maximum of 25%, so that it can reduce the annual salary of grade D, which is disadvantageous to the employment rules.