1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendant are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a “other public institution” designated by the Minister of Strategy and Finance pursuant to the Act on the Management of Public Institutions (hereinafter “the Act on the Management of Public Institutions”) as a national university-affiliated institution established based on the Act on the Establishment of National University-affiliated Institutes (hereinafter “National University University

The Plaintiffs are the employees belonging to the Defendant.

B. On October 10, 2014, the Defendant and the National Health and Medical Service Industry Workers’ Union concluded a collective agreement, including the content of the so-called continuous employment promotion system (Automatic) which is automatically promoted when the Defendant’s employees, including the Plaintiffs, meet the following tenure of office:

(hereinafter referred to as the collective agreement on the above continuous service promotion system is classified into “the instant Convention,” and the purpose of the whole pleadings and arguments as follows: (a) the period of service at Grades 8, 7, 7, 6, 6, 5, 5, and 7 years 5, 7, and 7 years 5, and 7 years 5, 7 (based on recognition); (b) there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition; (c)

2. The Defendant, which caused the Plaintiffs’ claim, did not issue an order of promotion of position as of January 1, 2015 to the Plaintiffs who satisfied the pertinent service period in accordance with the instant agreement, and paid only benefits according to the previous class, which is not promotional class, to the Plaintiffs.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to confirm that the plaintiffs are in the position of each position promoted as of January 1, 2015, and pay the difference in the benefits reflecting the order of promotion of the position, excluding the previous salary, and compensation for delay thereof. The defendant is obligated to pay the difference in the monthly salary, which reflects the order of promotion of the position from January 1, 2016 to the date of the order of promotion of the position, from January 1, 2016 to the date of the order of promotion of the position.

3. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The Defendant asserted that Plaintiff A, B, C, D, E, and F had already been issued a rank promotion order for Plaintiff G as of May 1, 2015, and as of November 1, 2015 for Plaintiff G as of November 1, 2015, the said Plaintiffs’ lawsuit is filed.