1. The part of the judgment of the first instance against the plaintiff B shall be revoked, and the lawsuit against the plaintiff B shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant's plaintiff A, C, and C.

1. The reasons why this court should explain are the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, it is citing it by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parties' assertion

A. Of the plaintiffs' assertion of reappointment disposition of this case, the part of the term of appointment for two years is null and void for the following reasons, and the term of appointment for six years (two years for plaintiff B) is converted according to Article 138 (Conversion of Invalidity Act) of the Civil Code.

Therefore, the plaintiffs seek confirmation that the term of appointment of the plaintiffs against the defendant is from March 1, 2016 to six years (two years in case of the plaintiff B) from March 1, 2016.

① The Defendant unilaterally set the term of appointment for the Plaintiffs as two years (one year for Plaintiff B) and issued the instant disposition of reappointment, and there was no consensus among the Plaintiffs on this.

② In order to revise the labor conditions of the F University faculty members in the Defendant’s articles of incorporation and the F University personnel management regulations, the part containing the labor conditions of the F University faculty members falls under the rules of employment and is subject to the procedures for consent of the majority of the former faculty members pursuant to Article 94(1) of the Labor Standards Act, but the Defendant, without following such procedures, has amended the articles of incorporation and the personnel management regulations, and there is no validity of the amended articles of incorporation and the amended regulations

Of the instant disposition of reappointment, the term of appointment is null and void in accordance with the amended articles of incorporation and the Regulations on Personnel Management of Teaching Staff.

③ The reduction in the term of appointment of the plaintiffs to lower the former is unlawful in violation of Article 56 (1) of the Private School Act regarding the guarantee of the status of teachers as it infringes on the plaintiffs' trust interests, and thus, the part concerning the term of appointment during the disposition of reappointment is null

B. The defendant's assertion is that the university competitiveness according to the reduction of the number of students and changes in society.