1.Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the judgment of the first instance, including the plaintiffs' claims extended in the trial, are as follows.

Basic Facts

The defendant, such as the status of the parties, is a school foundation that establishes and operates a G University (former name: G junior college; hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant University").

The Plaintiffs were appointed, promoted, and reappointed as the faculty members of the Defendant’s University as listed below, and the contract period was terminated on each date listed below in the “the expiration date of the appointment period” column.

A A A A Each disposition rejecting the reappointment of each of the plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as "each of the above dispositions rejecting the reappointment") against the plaintiffs A: The defendant's teachers' personnel committee consented to the appointment of fixed-term workers against the plaintiff A on August 6, 1998.

However, on August 10, 1998, the Defendant’s board of directors decided to refuse the Plaintiff’s re-election against the Plaintiff A on the ground that “The Plaintiff’s board of directors decided to abolish the subjects of culture from the year 1999 to the year of 199, would not contribute to the development of curriculum and other schools.”

Plaintiff

B: On July 21, 1994, the Defendant’s teachers personnel committee consented to the appointment of a fixed-term worker on Plaintiff B.

However, on August 16, 1994, the defendant's board of directors decided that "one teacher must be arranged inevitably due to the reduction of the duration of the cultural language subject," while the plaintiff A, as a doctoral degree holder, has 300% research performance, the plaintiff B is 100%, and therefore, the plaintiff A shall be reappointed, and the plaintiff B shall be refused to be reappointed."

Plaintiff

C: On July 25, 1997, the Defendant’s teachers’ personnel committee consented to the appointment of the Plaintiff C on a fixed-term basis on the grounds that Plaintiff C had problems such as life guidance and maintenance of dignity as a teacher.

However, on July 30, 1997, the board of directors of the defendant is at issue with the student guidance by the plaintiff C, and there is a problem with the teacher's guidance between the plaintiff and the teacher.

“For reasons, the Plaintiff decided to refuse the reappointment of the Plaintiff C and notified the said Plaintiff in writing on August 30, 1997.

Plaintiff

D. :