The costs of appeal are assessed against the Intervenor, and the remainder are assessed against the Intervenor.

1. The lower court determined as to the Defendant’s grounds of appeal, on the grounds that the Plaintiff suffered emotional distress due to the Defendant’s unlawful act, and thus, the Defendant was obligated to pay consolation money to the Plaintiff.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles, the above judgment below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the reason for replacing supervisors, the criteria for determining the violation of the duty of care of public officials, and

2. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal

A. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s instant notice given to the Korea Construction Consulting Engineers Association, the Korea Institute of Certified Architects, the Korea Construction Engineers Association, and the nationwide Si/Gun/Gu was unlawful.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles, although the court below did not separately explain the reason why the notice of this case was unlawful, it can be deemed that the court below included the purport of accepting the Plaintiff’s assertion that the notice of this case was unlawful.

The lower judgment did not err by omitting judgment or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

B. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2, 3, and 4, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that there exists a proximate causal relation between the Defendant’s instant replacement order and the Defendant’s temporary retirement or dismissal against the Plaintiff, or that the joint tort committed by the Defendant, D, and the Defendant’s Intervenor.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles, the above judgment below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the scope of damages, proximate causal relation, joint tort, omitting judgment, failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and inconsistent reasoning.

3. The final appeal is dismissed in entirety, and the costs of the final appeal are assessed against the Intervenor joining the Defendant, and the remainder is assessed against each appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.