1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

The defendant establishes and operates the AA City Art Group (hereinafter referred to as the "the Arts Group of this case"), AAA City Pursuant to the "Ordinance on the Establishment and Operation of AAA City Art Group" (hereinafter referred to as the "Ordinance of this case"), AAA City PP PP, AA City PP, AA City PP, AA City PP, and AA City PPs and Women's choirs choir (hereinafter referred to as the "art of this case").

The Plaintiffs are the date of entrance as members and the date of entry as members and the date of positions, positions, and strikes, etc. as shown in the attached Table 2.

The Plaintiffs concluded a two-year appointment contract with the Defendant on the corresponding date set forth in the separate sheet 2, and participated in the instant order as non-permanent members at each time the period expires, and were re-commissioned as a member through a regular rating. The period of commission was finally set from February 1, 2009 to January 31, 201, but the Intervenor’s market did not re-commissioned the Plaintiffs on January 31, 201, whose appointment period expires.

(2) Article 8(3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Ordinance of this case provides that the appointment of a new member and the procedure for re-commissioning of an existing member shall be guaranteed if the actual performance evaluation result shows a significant decline, and Article 8(3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Ordinance of this case provides that the re-commissioning of this case shall be conducted if the actual performance evaluation result shows a significant decline, and Article 8(3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Ordinance of this case provides that the re-commissioning of this case shall not be conducted, and Article 8(3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Ordinance of this case provides that the operation of the sub-commission of this case is a regular continuing business of the defendant, and (4) there is only one person who has rejected the re-commissioning, and the plaintiffs are re-commissioned several times, even if the period of commission expires, the defendant shall be unfairly re-commissioned through evaluation that lack objectivity and fairness.