1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The Defendant is a corporation established with the aim of increasing fishery productivity and contributing to the economic and social development of fishing villages by smoothly performing fishery resources projects, such as protecting and fostering eco-friendly fishery resources, and researching, developing, and distributing fishing ground management and technology. 2) The Plaintiff is a public official of B for the period from February 15, 1980 to February 15, 1980, while serving as a public official of B for the period from February 15, 2012. On April 1, 2012, the Defendant is a person newly employed as a class 2 administrative member through open competition.

B. On April 1, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into the annual salary contract with the Defendant with the annual salary of KRW 59,89,000, and the annual salary contract period from April 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012, the Plaintiff determined that the annual salary increase rate prescribed by the calculation of the annual salary and the Personnel Committee may be adjusted according to the result of the annual salary adjustment by the Government or the Defendant’s policy, in cases where there is a difference in the wage negotiation result, or there is a reason such as the annual salary reduction, etc. according to the government or the Defendant’s policy. 2) The above annual salary amount is determined to be adjusted according to the result of the annual salary adjustment by recognizing the Plaintiff’s public official’s career experience of Grade V and two years and six months of military service experience of Grade II and six months among the Plaintiff’s public official’s career of KRW 50,50,165,00 as the first annual salary amount calculated by applying the annual salary rate of KRW 309,509,90.

C. The Plaintiff’s objection and the Defendant’s annual salary set 1) The Plaintiff’s objection against the Defendant around November 2012, stipulated the Enforcement Rule of the Defendant’s Remuneration Regulations (hereinafter “Enforcement Rule”).

Article 4 provides that the annual salary of new employees shall be determined according to the remuneration standards, and the personnel committee may adjust it in consideration of equity with the existing employees, but the personnel committee failed to apply the same provision, and the plaintiff's annual salary was lower compared to C and D, which is the former transition employee.