1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 1998, the Plaintiff was appointed as a teacher of the Defendant’s surrogate University (the name of the Plaintiff: the name of the Plaintiff after the change).

(B) A full-time lecturer is appointed as an assistant professor on October 1, 2001, and each of them is promoted as an associate professor on April 1, 2006.

The Defendant maintained the annual salary system for the benefits system of the faculty of a surrogate University until the year of 198, and enacted and implemented the annual salary system with the content of payment according to the annual salary that reflects the results of the teachers in the immediately preceding year from March 1, 1999.

C. On February 25, 199, the Defendant explained the enforcement of the annual salary system at the Teachers’ Training Council held prior to the enactment of the provision on the payment of the annual salary system for the performance-based bonus, and received a written consent for the application of the annual salary system individually from teachers around March 199.

Since then, when the above provision on the payment of the annual salary system of the performance-based bonus became effective, the professor B, who wasD of the surrogate University, held a faculty meeting to obtain ratification of the above payment provision on July 15, 2010, and 40 of the participants at the time (the teachers appointed to the surrogate University before the enactment of the above provision on the payment of the annual salary system of the performance-based bonus was made and held at the time of the said faculty meeting) attended 45 and 35 of the participants, including the Plaintiff, signed the letter of consent for the supplementation of the annual salary

E. At the end of January 2015, the Defendant again notified 41 teachers (including the Plaintiff) who had been appointed to the said piece-based annual salary system and worked until the time of being appointed to the said university (including the Plaintiff) to the effect that the annual salary system was held on February 5, 2015, and 32 of them were present at the said meeting (the Plaintiff was not present) and the voting on the implementation of the annual salary system was carried out by a large number of persons, and 29 of them expressed their intent to consent to the implementation of the annual salary system.

F. The Defendant’s payment date is the 17th day of each month.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul Nos. 4 through 7, 9, 12.