1. The remainder of the judgment of the court of first instance, excluding the remainder that became final and conclusive by a judgment of remand, shall be changed from the trial after remand.

1. After remanding the case, the plaintiff at the first instance court filed a claim for confirmation of invalidity of the disposition rejecting reappointment made by the defendant against the plaintiff on February 28, 2010, and compensation for damages and consolation money incurred by the plaintiff. The first instance court accepted all of the plaintiff's claims.

Therefore, although the defendant appealed to the whole part of the judgment against the defendant, the court prior to the remand dismissed the defendant's appeal.

The defendant appealed against the judgment of the court prior to remand, and the Supreme Court reversed and remanded only the part against the defendant regarding property damage in the judgment prior to remand.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for confirmation of invalidity of the disposition rejecting reappointment and the claim for consolation money are already separately determined by the judgment of remanding, and the subject of judgment after remand is limited to the claim for damages on property.

2. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a school foundation that establishes and operates C University, and the plaintiff entered into an employment contract with the defendant on March 1, 2008 to February 28, 2010 with the term of employment from March 1, 2008 and served as a full-time lecturer at C University Tourism University.

B. On October 30, 2009, at least four months prior to the expiration of the term of appointment for the Plaintiff, C University notified the Plaintiff that he/she should prepare and submit an application for review of reappointment to the Plaintiff by November 13, 2009, and the Plaintiff prepared and submitted an application for examination of reappointment to C University within the said period. (2) On November 30, 2009, the Defendant issued a disciplinary measure to dismiss the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff, in consultation with the Vice-President of C University, prepared a school document that reversed the order of evaluation against the Plaintiff, and submitted the documents, such as school documents, which were unlawfully prepared, interfered with the Defendant’s new appointment of the Plaintiff by fraudulent means by leading the Plaintiff to be appointed by himself/herself in the process of pre-employment of teachers, including submission of materials, to the Defendant’s board of directors.”

The plaintiff.