1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s appeal and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s counterclaim that the court changed in exchange.

Facts of recognition

The Plaintiff is a corporation that operates the “E”, which is a specialized driving school for the appointment of kindergarten teachers.

On March 31, 2016, the Defendant concluded a contract with the Plaintiff on March 31, 2016, and performed the duties of the Plaintiff’s educational research institute, and the department of the private teaching institute’s business. On June 27, 2016, the Defendant again concluded a contract with the Plaintiff on the lecture that the Defendant works as an instructor of the private teaching institute (hereinafter “instant lecture contract”).

The contract of this case includes the following penalty provisions:

Article 8(3) of the Act. Where the Defendant fails to make a lecture within the contract period due to a cause attributable to the Defendant, the Defendant shall compensate the Plaintiff for 2.5 times the sales accrued during 12 months, counting from the time of suspension of the contract deposit and the point of suspension of the lecture.

The penalty for breach of contract is the damage compensation and the separate remedy in Article 12.

On April 22, 2016, the Plaintiff employed F as the president of the said private teaching institute, and F continued to make a statement to the Defendant, i.e., whether or not the Defendant knows of the film, such as the content of the film, smile, smile, and the body part of the main film, i.e., the Defendant’s Easter, D, and G, and c, which the Defendant wishes to use in the name of a lecturer at the private teaching institute as an instructor in the restaurant near the private teaching institute, together with the words “C” and “I would like to think that any person would take part in the name of a lecturer at the private teaching institute every time he listens to the Defendant’s name.”

Around November 2016, the Defendant retired from office to another private teaching institute after the said private teaching institute was retired.

The defendant filed a lawsuit against F against F to seek compensation for mental suffering due to F's sexual harassment (Seoul Central District Court 2017Da5121277), and F was found to have committed a tort corresponding to sexual harassment on the job, and the judgment ordering F to pay consolation money of KRW 1,00,000 and delay damages to F was rendered on June 15, 2018.

The above judgment is both the defendant and F.