1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the order of additional payment shall be revoked.

Of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance court which partially accepted the judgment of the first instance court, the part concerning “1. Basic Facts,” “2. Determination on property damage claim,” and “3. Determination on mental damage claim” shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, but “2. Determination on property damage claim –

A. As to the cause of the claim, the part of - 2) scope of liability for re-appointing the Plaintiff is modified as follows. (The Plaintiff asserts that even in the trial of the Party, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay consolation money of KRW 100 million for mental suffering suffered by the Plaintiff, even if the Plaintiff, including the Plaintiff’s written evidence Nos. 7 through 12, submitted by the court of the Party concerned, was proved to the effect that the Plaintiff intentionally refused re-appointing the Plaintiff at a university, on the ground that the Plaintiff could not objectively refuse re-appointing the Plaintiff at the university, or that the Plaintiff could not objectively be considered as grounds for refusal of re-appointing the Plaintiff, or that the Plaintiff could not be considered as grounds for refusal if he was aware of the fact that the Plaintiff could not be re-appointed, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s examination of the scope of liability for re-appointing the Plaintiff’s total cumulative points for evaluating teachers during the period of appointment (at the same time as the Plaintiff’s class B above, exceeding the scope of the Plaintiff’s position above 206 days through research records.

(b).