Of the part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff, the reprimand disposition against the Plaintiff on September 4, 2013 and the suspension of duties as of December 11, 2013.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief submitted after the deadline for submitting them).

1. The progress and major issues of the instant case

A. On June 11, 2013, the Plaintiff, 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 on the job.

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 et al. who is 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”).

B. The first instance court partially accepted the Plaintiff’s claim against B and dismissed all of the remainder of the claim against the Defendant and the Defendant.

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

C. The lower court partly accepted the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant as follows.

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

However, the defendant's preliminary decision that "the entire obligation of consolation money of KRW 7 million and damages for delay that the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff according to the employer's responsibility was extinguished by the repayment of the B after the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered."