1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The defendant, from 2004 to 2005, entrusted a third party with the management process of part of the business affairs of the 14 sectors, such as protection and railroad maintenance, for the purpose of improving human resources structure, as a way to maximize the management effect and efficiency.

(B) A company is one company, and B (hereinafter “B”) is a company specializing in security services established on March 7, 2005 for the hings in the field of protection, which entered into a security service contract with the Defendant, and C (hereinafter “C”) is a company incorporated to take charge of the luminous operations in the field of the B’s operations, and is a company established to succeed to the same labor conditions as B and agreed to succeed to the same.

The Plaintiffs, while serving as the employees of the Defendant Company, retired from the Defendant Company in accordance with the aforementioned Acsing policy, and were employed on May 1, 2005, and retired, or transferred from B to C on July 1, 2010.

B. Around 2004, the Defendant anticipated difficulties in lowering the international competitiveness, which led to concentration of company functions and human resources in core areas, and the remaining areas of the company’s implementation of the policies for outsourcing as a specialized specialized company.

Accordingly, the defendant, at the first stage in 2005, has 5 fields (protection, railroad maintenance, tin boards, labor welfare/education, open space facilities), and 9 fields (i.e., rollls, water treatment, etc.) in 2006. However, at the second stage, the defendant decided to entrust 11 new companies and 8 existing foreign cooperative companies with each business.

C. On November 18, 2004, the Defendant prepared “the direction and promotion plan to improve human resources for securing future competitiveness”, and among them, according to the “Ⅳ. Dialing promotion plan”, “the former company and the Defendant company’s labor cost should be preserved in full by paying the incentive at the time of change of occupation, thereby preserving the difference between the labor cost of the former company and the Defendant company, and the labor cost of the former company should be 70% of the Defendant company’s labor cost.”

The defendant shall be at around November 2004, 2005.