1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. (1) The Plaintiff was working for the Market Management Agency (hereinafter “Marketing Agency”) from June 2006, and was working for the Defendant as a result of the integration of the Si Gyeongwon and the Small Enterprise Promotion Agency (hereinafter “Small Enterprise Promotion Agency”) pursuant to Article 10-4 of the former Act on Special Measures for Support for Small and Medium Enterprises (wholly amended by Act No. 13086, Jan. 28, 2015). As such, the Plaintiff was working for the Defendant from January 1, 2014.

(2) On March 1, 2010, the Plaintiff served for about four years at Siwon to G3, and was granted a class 4 of general service from the Defendant, thereby promoting the Plaintiff to class 3 of general service on January 13, 2015.

B. With respect to the payment of remuneration to the employees in general service, the Gyeongwon adopted the annual salary system, and the Jinwon adopted the salary system.

The relevant details of the regulations on the payment of remuneration of Si Gyeongwon (hereinafter referred to as the “instant regulations on the payment of remuneration”) shall be as specified in attached Table 1, and the relevant details of the regulations on the remuneration (hereinafter referred to as the “instant regulations”) at the time of the establishment of the defendant shall be as specified in attached Table 2.

(The instant provision was repealed on January 1, 2017). 【The grounds for recognition ] There is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination as to the assertion on the cause of claim

A. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) Article 8 of the Rules on the Payment of Remuneration (hereinafter “the instant provision”) stipulated a promotional rule that “the basic annual salary at the time of the employee’s elevation shall be determined by raising 10% on the basis of the basic annual salary before the elevation; but (b) the Defendant deleted the instant provision and enacted the instant repair provision.”

This is an unfavorable modification of the rules of employment, but it is null and void as it was revised without such procedure, and the validity of the provision of this case, which is the previous rules of employment, is maintained as it is.

(2) A separate annual salary system shall apply to the employee from a person who was from a guard, unlike a person who was from a guard.