1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The grounds for admitting the judgment of the court of first instance, which the plaintiffs asserted in the trial while appealed, are not significantly different from the already asserted contents in the court of first instance, and the judgment of the court of first instance that rejected the plaintiffs' claims even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance was neglect of the evidence No. 9 submitted in the court of first instance

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of the court in this case is as follows: ① the intervenor’s “in the first instance court’s decision” is “Defendant market”; ② the “cancellation” of the 8th 10th 10 st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st

2. Details of the judgment on supplement;

A. On the following grounds, the plaintiffs' assertion that the plaintiffs did not re-commission the plaintiffs as members of the school of the school of this case for the following reasons, which the plaintiffs did not re-commission the plaintiffs, is denied by infringing the plaintiffs' legitimate renewal right without reasonable grounds, and thus is null and void as it constitutes an unfair dismissal.

1) The rejection of a contract is unfair to allow renewal only through an open recruitment procedure, which is a mere procedure for the appointment of new members, rather than an existing procedure for re-commissioning, to the Plaintiffs recognized as legitimate right of expectation for re-commissioning, and the rejection of a contract on the ground that they did not apply for such open recruitment procedure. 2) The Ordinance of this case separates the re-commissioning of existing members and the appointment of new members, and stipulates the appointment of new members, and it is guaranteed to re-commissions if the amount of skill in the opposite interpretation of Article 8(3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Ordinance of this case is not remarkably lowered. Thus, Article 9(3) of the Ordinance of this case is