1. All appeals filed by the Defendant and the Intervenor C are dismissed.

2. The appeal costs are between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

The court's explanation of this case by the court of the first instance as to this case is consistent with the reasoning of the first instance judgment except for the following parts: (i) No. 23, 14, and 24, of the first instance judgment; (ii) No. 23, 14, and 24, of the first instance judgment; and (iii) No. 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

(1) The case affirming the purport that: (a) while filing an appeal by the Defendant and Intervenor C, the grounds alleged in the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial does not differ significantly from the allegations in the first instance; and (b) even if all evidence submitted in the first instance were examined, the judgment of the first instance court rejecting the Defendant and Intervenor’s assertion; (c) (d) The Defendant and Intervenor asserted that: (a) the purpose of the Plaintiff’s attempt to conclude a “hour-hour labor contract” in 2015 is not to apply Articles 5 and 60 of the Labor Standards Act to multicultural instructors by entering into a first time employment contract for less than 15 hours a week; (b) the Plaintiff was not to be excluded from the application of retirement benefit scheme under the Workers’ Retirement Benefits Security Act or various social insurance; and (c) the Government was to exclude the subject of a “non-regular employment improvement project for the public sector,” which has been continuously implemented after 2011; (c) however, (d) the Plaintiff appears to have concluded a multi-cultural instructor’s labor contract within the budget limit of the Plaintiff’s.