1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal as follows, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

2. The height of the judgment of the court of first instance in the same part shall be as follows: “Until November 31, 2015,” 2, 14 and 15 of the second 15 of the judgment of the court of first instance, respectively.

The second 16th judgment of the first instance court states, “Plaintiff A submitted the document of resignation (a resignation; hereinafter “the document of resignation”) to the president of D University on November 23, 2015, and Plaintiff B on November 24, 2015.”

The third 4 acts in the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: (a) there is no dispute over [based ground for recognition]; (b) entry in Gap evidence 1 through 8 and 11 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply); and (c) the purport of the whole pleadings.

The lower part between the third and fourth column of the judgment of the first instance is as follows.

A. It is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that E, which was the president of D University at the time, promised to appoint 30 million won per annual salary when he resigns to the plaintiffs as a tin professor, based on the consideration of each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 8, 11, and 18 as to the claim for damages due to the failure to comply with the appointment commitment of tin professor, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Even if, as alleged by the plaintiffs, E had complied with the above commitments against the plaintiffs, since the associate professor of the D University was appointed by the president through a resolution of the board of directors on the recommendation of the president following a deliberation by the teachers' personnel committee, as so acknowledged, E, who only held the authority of the proposal, in the appointment of associate professor, does not necessarily have the obligation to implement such commitments, and E did not fulfill the above commitments.