beta
Text
The judgment below
The part of the claim for nullification of dismissal is reversed, and this part of the judgment of the first instance is revoked.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal
A. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription did not constitute an abuse of rights against the principle of good faith.
In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or by misapprehending the legal principles on ex
B. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court determined that the reprimand, suspension from office, and dismissal of the instant case constituted a tort against the Plaintiff on the grounds as stated in its reasoning.
In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by violating the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the requirements for establishment of tort.
C. As to the ground of appeal No. 3, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s wages, after January 1, 2016, to be paid to the Plaintiff, should be calculated on the premise that the Plaintiff engaged in general duties, not marketing duties, and received an intermediate performance rating.
In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by violating the rules of logic and experience or by violating the rules of evidence.
2. Judgment on the Defendant’s grounds of appeal
A. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court cited the first instance judgment, and the Plaintiff is identical to the grounds for reprimand and suspension.