All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Case history and key issue

A. (1) The reasoning of the lower judgment reveals the following facts.

The plaintiffs were the school accounting staff of various levels of schools located within the jurisdiction of the defendant, and the defendant is the local government in charge of education, science, technology, sports and other academic affairs of the local government pursuant to Article 2 of the Local Education Autonomy Act.

In accordance with the basic guidelines on the compilation of school accounting budget in 2004 through 2007, the Defendant entered into an employment contract with the Plaintiffs as a one-year contract worker, and entered into an employment contract to convert the contract into a life contract worker at the end of September 2007 or at the beginning of October 2007.

From June 2009 to February 2012, the Defendant paid wages to Plaintiff A and B based on the remuneration of employment public officials in technical service, from March 2012 to May 2012, 201, and from June 2009 to February 2012, the remaining Plaintiffs paid wages based on the remuneration of public officials in technical service 10 to May 2012.

(2) The Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit claiming that the Defendant should pay the difference between the regular rise of wages and the actual paid wages each year in accordance with the amount of the class 9 salary of a public official in technical service retroactively at the time of employment.

For this reason, in 2004, local public officials in technical service should be paid remuneration on the basis of 10th class 1 through 3th class of public officials in technical service, but in 2005, the basic guidelines for 1th class 3th class was deleted, so the reason for 2005 re-determination occurred, and in 2012, the basic guidelines for 201 the school accounting budget stipulates that the salary table of public officials in technical service should be applied to the employees in technical service such as the plaintiffs.

B. The key issue of this case is ① according to the above basic guidelines for the formation of the school accounting budget, the defendant is employed against the plaintiffs.