1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part of the claim for confirmation of the status of workers in Q, R, S, and V is revoked, and that part falls under that part.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and this case is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for

On February 12, 2006 of the decision of the first instance court three pages 12 shall be amended to “Around December 2005,” “A trade union” in the same 13th page, “A trade union” in the same 13th page, “A trade union” in the same 17th page, and “work” in the same 17th page to “A trade union”.

The defendant trade union (hereinafter referred to as "trade union") shall be amended to "trade union" in four and nine pages 8 and nine of the judgment of the first instance court.

On 6 pages 1 of the first instance judgment, the phrase “the invalidity confirmation of dismissal” shall be amended to “the invalidity confirmation of the retirement disposition”, and the phrase “the ruling dismissing the plaintiff’s claims” in the 7th same page shall be amended to “the ruling dismissing the claim.”

The 6th 13th 13th 13th 13th 7th 3th 7th 3th 3th 3th 3th 1st 1st 1st 2th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 200 “Plaintiff A, Q, R, Plaintiff Q, Plaintiff R, Plaintiff AF, and Plaintiff V,” respectively, “Plaintiff A, and B, prior to the closing date of pleadings in the first 1st 2015 (in the case of Plaintiff A and B) and Party B, prior to the closing date of pleadings in the first 2016.”

The 13th class "educational job series" in the 7th class of the judgment of the first instance shall be modified to "school job series".

The 8 pages 2 of the judgment of the first instance court shall be amended to “the rest of the plaintiffs except the plaintiffs AC”.

Then, following the “see 91Da19210, the lower part of the 9th judgment of the first instance court”, “The plaintiffs also recognize that the series of classes of the plaintiffs is not changed by the amendment of the above organization regulations, and it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiffs’ working conditions are changed by the previous disposition of this case, which is deemed to be changed by the previous disposition of this case.”