손해배상(국)
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's claim expanded by this court are dismissed, respectively.
2. The appeal cost and this court.
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and this case is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for partial revision as follows.
In the second sentence of the first instance judgment, the 16th sentence “Plaintiff shall, as a partial claim, claim damages of KRW 50,000,000,000” shall be amended to read “Plaintiff shall claim damages of KRW 300,000,000.”
The 3 pages 8 to 15 of the first instance judgment shall be amended as follows.
[In light of the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant interfered with the Plaintiff’s request for personnel exchange or mishandling’s handling of grievance request, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. ① Around July 2011, the Ministry of Public Administration and Security sent to the Defendant a public notice of the list of persons subject to personnel exchange among local governments (the fact-finding response to the Ministry of Public Administration and Security) around the date of the fact-finding inquiry into the Ministry of Public Administration and Security, including “the Plaintiff located in the government government, as Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu, as Seoul, as the E-B government, as the witness of the first instance court, and as the witness of the first instance and the first instance court, as the result of the fact-finding inquiry into the Ministry of Public Administration and Security, it included the contents of “the Plaintiff’s wish to exchange as the Seoul, and as the Seoul, as the result of the fact-finding inquiry into the Ministry of Public Administration and Security,” and it appears that the Plaintiff and the parties were included in the above statement during the period of personnel exchange.
However, the foregoing.