1. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims against defendant D and E respectively.

1. The following facts are found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 15, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings:

A. The B Education Center (hereinafter “Education Center”) was abolished as of March 1, 2009 under the former B Education Center Act (Act No. 9318, Dec. 31, 2008) as an affiliated non-profit organization under the Ministry of Labor established pursuant to the former B Education Center Act (Act No. 4253, Aug. 1, 1990); and the Defendant Educational Foundation C (hereinafter “Defendant Juristic Person”) comprehensively succeeds to all the property, rights, and obligations.

Defendant D is a person who served as the head of the F Trade Union Education Center Branch (hereinafter referred to as the “Education Center Branch”) from November 2005 to October 2007, and Defendant E is a person who served as the Secretary General of the Education Center from February 2006 to February 2006.

The plaintiff worked in the education center from December 16, 1989 to December 31, 2008.

B. On October 9, 2006, the head of the education center and the head of the chapter of the education center and the head of the chapter of the education center entered into a labor-management agreement with the wage peak system and a public recruitment implementation labor-management agreement, and on January 19, 2007, entered into a labor-management supplementary revision agreement with the contents of the above agreement.

Details of the above Convention, the amended Convention, etc. shall be as shown in attached Form.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant agreement” in combination with the foregoing Convention.

When enforcing the wage peak system under the instant agreement (hereinafter referred to as the "the wage peak system of this case"), the Education Institute notified the Plaintiff on November 24, 2006 that "the subject: A: the enforcement date: from November 27, 2006, the annual salary: one year (90%) and two years (from November 27, 2006 to December 31, 2007) and two years (from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2008) of the enforcement of the wage peak system of this case. The Plaintiff fell under the age of 61,00 for the Plaintiff as a professor with G (the age of 59) and the retirement age of 61 years, and the Plaintiff constitutes the Defendant's age of 1 to December 27, 2006 under Article 48 (2) of the Personnel Management Regulations and falls under the Defendant's retirement age of 61 years (the age of 60,000).