1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance (except for the part which became final and conclusive by a remanded judgment) is below.

The summary of the case subject to the trial scope of the party's trial after the process of the lawsuit and the remand and the following facts are apparent in the records.

On June 11, 2013, the Plaintiff, as an employee of the Defendant, filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant and the co-defendant B of the first instance trial seeking damages on the ground of sexual harassment in the workplace.

The cause of the claim against B is that B was sexual harassment against the Plaintiff as the plaintiff's superior and the head of the affiliated team.

In addition, the cause of the claim against the defendant is that the defendant is liable for damages caused by ① sexual harassment as mentioned above and ② defamation remarks made in the course of investigating the case of sexual harassment by F, an employee of the defendant's personnel team.

After that, the Plaintiff added a claim for damages against the Defendant on the ground that (i) the suspension disposition against G G that assisted the Plaintiff on July 19, 2013; (ii) the reprimand disposition against the Plaintiff on September 4, 2013; (iii) the notification of the assignment of work against the Plaintiff on October 17, 2013; and (iv) the suspension of duties and standby order, etc. against the Plaintiff on December 11, 2013, constitutes “unfair measures” prohibited under Article 14(2) of the Equal Employment Opportunity and Work-Family Balance Assistance Act (hereinafter “Equal Employment Opportunity Act”).

The first instance court partially accepted the plaintiff's claim against B, and dismissed all the remainder of the claim against the defendant and the second claim against the defendant.

Accordingly, among the judgment of the first instance court, the plaintiff appealed only against the defendant, and the part concerning B was finalized as it is.

Before remand, this Court partly accepted the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant as follows.

The defendant's employer's responsibility for sexual harassment in B is recognized.

However, the Defendant’s conjunctive defense of payment of consolation money of KRW 7 million and damages for delay, which the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff according to the employer’s responsibility, all of which were extinguished by the Defendant’s repayment after the pronouncement of the first instance judgment, is with merit. Accordingly, the Defendant’s conjunctive defense of payment is ultimately related to sexual harassment