1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the plaintiffs' claims modified and added by this court, shall be changed as follows.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the amendment as follows, including the judgment on the Defendant’s additional assertion, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. During the third seven parallels and eight parallels in the judgment of the first instance, the defendant added the amount of wages of KRW 6,922,820 to the plaintiff A, KRW 6,488,090 to the plaintiff B, and KRW 6,045,940 to the plaintiff C on the 25th day of each month.

The third 9th 9th am "for the plaintiff" in the first 1 judgment shall be "for the plaintiff A and B".

The 3rd 12th 12th 12th son of the judgment of the first instance added “the notice” (hereinafter referred to as “the guidance on the application for reappointment of this case”) to the back.

The average "69.3" of the last part of the fifth Table in the judgment of the first instance shall be "69.33".

“Plaintiff, , and was assigned” at 3 to 6th 6th end of the judgment of the first instance. “The 1st 82 points, 79 points, and 82 points for each of three research achievements in the research quality examination of Plaintiff B, the 2nd 52 points, 55 points, 46 points, and the 3rd 64 points, 64 points, 64 points, and 73 points, respectively, were given an average of the 66.33 points, and the 70th 3.67 points were given.”

"54" in attached Table 11 of the judgment of the first instance shall be raised to "64".

On January 20, 2016, the Defendant’s University Teachers’ Personnel Committee decided that the Plaintiff A and B will not be reappointed as the result of the initial deliberation on January 20, 2016. On January 29, 2016, the Defendant’s president’s vicarious performance of duties was below the basic evaluation score, and the Plaintiff B was dismissed from reappointment due to falling short of the basic evaluation score and the research quality evaluation score.”

On September 18, 2015, Plaintiff C provided guidance on the application for reappointment on September 18, 2015, and Plaintiff C applied for deliberation on reappointment to Defendant on October 30, 2015.