All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal by the Plaintiff are assessed against the Defendants.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff, the lower court, based on its reasoning, attempted to conceal the fact that the Plaintiff was forced to commit indecent acts by force.

The court rejected the plaintiff's assertion that there was a false fact in the Republic of Korea.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is acceptable, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment due to the violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete hearing

Furthermore, the lower court determined that Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”)’s disciplinary action against the perpetrator of sexual harassment in the workplace and the Plaintiff on the premise that the Plaintiff was granted approval by means of a false overseas business trip plan does not constitute “other unfavorable measures” under Article 14(2) of the former Equal Employment Opportunity and Work-Family Balance Assistance Act (wholly amended by Act No. 15109, Nov. 28, 2017; hereinafter “former Equal Employment Opportunity Act”). The lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant Company neglected the obligation to take appropriate measures to separate the Plaintiff and the perpetrator or to prevent secondary damage to the Plaintiff.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is acceptable, and there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles as to Article 14(2) of the former Equal Employment Opportunity Act, or of violating the rules of evidence, failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, omitting judgment, or failing to exhaust any reason

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant B, the lower court rejected Defendant B’s assertion that the amount of consolation money is excessive, after determining that Defendant B committed indecent act by force on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is acceptable, and there are errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the meaning of indecent act by compulsion, calculation of consolation money, or incomplete hearing.