logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2010. 9. 30. 선고 2008다58794,58800,58817 판결
[임금채무부존재확인·재임용탈락처분무효등·손해배상(기)등][미간행]
Main Issues

[1] Whether the appointment authority's discretionary act is the case where the term of appointment expires for a private university teacher (affirmative)

[2] Whether a teacher of a private university has the right to demand a fair review of reappointment, who is appointed as a fixed-term teacher and whose employment period expires (affirmative)

[3] The validity of a decision to refuse the reappointment of a faculty member of a private university, the criteria for determining whether a decision to refuse the reappointment is a deviation or abuse of discretionary power, and the burden of proof (=person who asserts the invalidity)

[4] In a case where the amended Private School Act applies or applies retroactively to a decision to refuse the reappointment of a teacher of a private university, whether the decision to refuse the reappointment can be denied only by procedural defects that did not comply with the prior procedure under Article 53-2(4) through (7) of the amended Private School Act (affirmative with qualification)

[5] In a case where a decision to refuse the reappointment of a teacher of a private university was made before the amendment of the Private School Act enters into force, and only a special Act for the relief of a person excluded from the appointment of a university faculty member is applied, whether the decision to refuse the appointment can be deemed null and void solely on the ground that the person did not undergo prior procedures under Article 53-2(4) through (7) of the amended Private School Act (negative), and the case where the decision to refuse the appointment becomes null and void on the ground

[6] In a case where a school foundation's decision to reject the reappointment of a fixed-term university faculty member is deemed to deviate from or abuse the discretion or lack of procedural requirements and its judicial effect is denied, the requirements for liability for damages caused by the tort (i.e., loss of objective legitimacy) and the criteria for the determination thereof

[7] The amount of damages (i.e., the amount equivalent to the wages during the period of re-employment) and the method of determining the scope of the available period of service where a decision to refuse re-election of a university faculty member

[8] Requirements for a private university teacher to claim consolation money from mental suffering in addition to property damage caused by illegal refusal of reappointment

[9] In a case where a decision of inconsistency with the Constitution regarding Article 53-2 (3) of the former Private School Act was rendered prior to the pronouncement of a decision of inconsistency with the Constitution, whether a school juristic person is liable to compensate for damages on the ground of unlawful rejection of reappointment

[10] Whether a school juristic person's liability for damages caused by illegal rejection of reappointment after a decision of inconsistency with the Constitution as to Article 53-2 (3) of the former Private School Act was rendered can only be held at the time when the applicant for reexamination becomes objectively confirmed (affirmative)

[Reference Provisions]

[1] Article 31 of the Constitution, Article 14 of the Framework Act on Education, Article 53-2 of the former Private School Act (amended by Act No. 7802 of Dec. 29, 2005) / [2] Article 53-2 of the former Private School Act (amended by Act No. 7802 of Dec. 29, 2005) / [3] Article 53-2 of the former Private School Act (amended by Act No. 7802 of Dec. 29, 2005), Article 288 of the Civil Procedure Act / [4] Article 53-2 of the former Private School Act (amended by Act No. 7802 of Dec. 29, 2005); Article 53-2 of the former Private School Act (amended by Act No. 7802 of Dec. 29, 2005) / [5] Article 70 of the former Private School Act (amended by Act No. 78070 of Dec. 29, / [207)

Reference Cases

[1] [2] [4] [5] Supreme Court Decision 2007Da9009 Decided February 1, 2008 (Gong2008Sang, 306) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 96Da7069 Decided June 27, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2315), Supreme Court Decision 97Da25477 Decided December 23, 1997 (Gong1998Sang, 371) / [2] 4] 2/5 [3] 605/10 [6] 207Da42433 Decided July 29, 2010 (Gong2010Ha, 1728) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2003Da547979 Decided March 27, 2006

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant), Appellee-Appellant

Plaintiff (Law Firm Support, Attorneys Choi Mine-nam et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff-Appellee-Appellant

Defendant 1 and one other (Law Firm Barun, Attorneys Han-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)-Appellant

Defendant 3

Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)-Appellant-Appellee

Defendant 4 (Attorney Hwang Byung-il, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Judgment of the lower court

Daegu High Court Decision 2007Na8205, 8212, 8229 Decided July 4, 2008

Text

Of the part against Defendant 1 and 2 in the lower judgment against the principal lawsuit and counterclaim, the part of the claim for confirmation of non-existence of the damage obligation and the claim for damages after February 27, 2003, the part of the claim for confirmation of non-existence of the counterclaim against Defendant 3, and the part of the claim for confirmation of non-existence of the damage obligation and the claim for damages among the part of the main lawsuit and counterclaim against Defendant 4, are reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court. The remaining appeals by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and Defendant 1 and 2 are dismissed, respectively.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal (if the supplementary appellate brief was not timely filed, to the extent that it supplements the grounds of appeal) by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant, hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff, hereinafter “Defendant”) are examined.

1. Determination on the grounds of appeal by the plaintiff and defendant 3 as to the claim for nullification of the decision to refuse reappointment

A. Determination of inconsistency with the Constitution and the enactment and amendment of relevant statutes

Article 53-2(3) of the former Private School Act (amended by Act No. 4226, Apr. 7, 1990; Act No. 5274, Jan. 13, 1997); Article 53-2(3) of the former Private School Act (amended by Act No. 5274, Jan. 13, 1997; Act No. 6004, Aug. 31, 1999; Act No. 6004, Feb. 27, 2003; Act No. 6688, Feb. 27, 2003; Act No. 6688, Feb. 18, 2003; Act No. 6688, Feb. 27, 2003; Act No. 6683, Feb. 3, 2003; Act No. 6887, Feb. 3, 2003>

Accordingly, Article 53-2 of the Private School Act was amended by Act No. 7352 on January 27, 2005 (hereinafter “amended Private School Act”); Article 53-2 of the amended Private School Act maintained the system constitutional as to the system of inconsistency with the Constitution in 2003 (Parag. 3); and Article 53-4 through (8) provides for ex-ante procedures and ex-post relief procedures regarding the reappointment of the relevant teacher in accordance with paragraph (1) of the Addenda; and Article 53-2 of the Private School Act also applied from January 27, 2005, the enforcement date of the amended Private School Act. However, Article 53-2 (2) of the Addenda only provides for a transitional provision that “for a college educational institution teacher who has been appointed for a specified period under the previous provision at the time of the enforcement of the amended Private School Act, the provision was enacted for the protection of rights and interests of the university and interests of the 10th National University Faculty and the 15th National University Faculty Act for the purpose of 20.

B. As to the grounds of appeal on the grounds of invalidation of the decision rejecting reappointment of this case

Article 31(1) of the Constitution provides that all citizens shall have the right to receive education equally according to their abilities, and provides that the right to receive education shall be the right to receive education as the constitutional right, while Article 31(4) of the Constitution provides that education independence, speciality, political neutrality, and autonomy of universities shall be guaranteed under the conditions as prescribed by the Act, and Article 31(6) of the Constitution provides that education systems and the legal principle of teacher status shall be provided. This is intended to realize by education of the constitutional ideology, which is designed to contribute to the permanent world peace and human co-prosperity through the construction of free and cultural democratic welfare state expressed in the preamble and Chapter I. This is intended to realize through education of the Constitution, which is designed to contribute to the permanent world peace and human co-prosperity, with the aim of promoting the sound knowledge and personality of the students, and teaching the results of academic research with the aim of promoting the future society, teachers in charge of such education shall serve as the manager of the public education system, which will lead the future society to lead self-support of students (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Decision 2003Hun-Ba26, Feb.

The legal nature of a contract for the appointment of a private school teacher is high under the private law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da11689, Jul. 30, 1996). The Constitutional Court determined that the term of appointment itself cannot be deemed as unconstitutional in 200 regarding Article 53-2(3) of the former Private School Act. Accordingly, the current Private School Act also maintains the legal system for the appointment of a teacher of a private school for a fixed period of time, barring special circumstances such as compulsory provisions for reappointment or renewal of employment contracts, it should be deemed that the pertinent teacher whose term of appointment expires should naturally lose its status as a teacher upon expiration of its term of appointment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Da52647, Mar. 9, 2006; 200Da266262, Mar. 9, 206). It should also be see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da3700, supra.

However, under the relevant provisions of the amended Private School Act and the Special Act on Relief, as seen earlier, a private university teacher who has been appointed by the fixed-term appointment system for university faculty and whose term of appointment has expired after undergoing a fair examination based on reasonable standards as to his/her ability and qualities as a teacher, barring special circumstances, has the right to demand a fair examination based on reasonable standards as to whether he/she is reappointed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Da52647, Mar. 9, 2006; 2007Da909, Feb. 1, 2008; 2007Da909, Feb. 1, 2008; 2007Da9009, etc.). Where the person who has the right to appoint refuses the reappointment of a teacher who has applied for reappointment, the determination that the person violates the principle of equality or the principle of fair evaluation based on the degree of permission for reappointment as a teacher even if there is such a ground should be denied or denied.

In addition, in cases where the amended Private School Act applies or applies retroactively to the procedure of deciding to refuse the reappointment of a teacher of a private university, if the school foundation fails to comply with the prior procedure set forth in Article 53-2(4) through (7) of the amended Private School Act and the right to request a fair review based on reasonable standards is substantially infringed, such decision to refuse reappointment may be denied only with such procedural defects: Provided, That in cases where only the Special Act on Remedies for Re-employment applies to a decision to refuse reappointment made before the amended Private School Act enters into force, the above Special Act only provides for the review criteria and remedy procedures, such as the amended Private School Act, and does not provide for the prior procedure related to reappointment, and thus, such prior procedure cannot be deemed immediately null and void solely on the ground that it did not follow the prior procedure set forth in Article 53-2(4) through (7) of the amended Private School Act (see Supreme Court Decisions 2007Da909, Feb. 1, 2008; 2008Hun-Ba37, Jan. 27, 20008).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts such as the articles of association and teachers personnel management regulations of the university of this case, the examination criteria and procedures for the reappointment of the university of this case, the examination and deliberation point for the defendants' reappointment, research performance evaluation and work performance performance evaluation of the defendants, etc., and judged that the above defendants' refusal to be reappointed was null and void since they exceeded and abused their discretionary power on the grounds of its stated reasoning. In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the discretion of the refusal to be reappointed. The plaintiff's ground of appeal

However, in light of the fact that there is no provision regarding the procedures for prior examination for reappointment in the amended Private School Act, the Plaintiff’s articles of association, and the Teachers Personnel Management Regulations of the University of this case, which were applied at the time of the examination for reappointment due to procedural defects of Defendant 3, the lower court rejected the above assertion on the ground that the decision cannot be deemed null and void on the ground that the mere fact that the Plaintiff did not undergo prior procedures, such as granting the above Defendant an opportunity to state his opinion at the time of the decision to refuse reappointment, does not constitute a procedural defect. However, as seen earlier, if it can be assessed in the case of lack of minimum procedural requirements for examination for reappointment, such as prior notice of the grounds for refusal of reappointment in light of the entire progress of the procedures for reappointment and guaranteeing the relevant teacher’s opportunity to present his opinion, the effect of the decision to refuse reappointment may be denied. Accordingly, the lower court should have determined the validity of the decision to refuse reappointment by considering whether the Plaintiff satisfies the above minimum procedural requirements at the time of examination for reappointment in accordance with the aforementioned determination criteria.

Nevertheless, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion solely on the ground as above without examining whether the procedure requirements for the appointment as a minimum in the examination for reappointment were met. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the procedures for the appointment as a university faculty member prior to the enforcement of the amended Private School Act, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations. Therefore, without examining the remainder of the grounds of appeal, the part on the claim for nullification of the decision to refuse the appointment by Defendant

2. Determination on the grounds of appeal by the plaintiff and the defendant 1, 2, and 4 regarding the claim for damages due to the refusal of reappointment

(a) Requirements for establishing liability for damages of school juristic persons resulting from illegal refusal of reappointment and the scope of liability;

Even if a decision on refusal of reappointment by a school juristic person for a fixed-term faculty member is deemed to have deviates from or abused discretion and its judicial effect is denied, in order to seek compensation for property damage to the school juristic person on the ground that such decision constitutes a tort, the refusal of reappointment shall be recognized. For this purpose, the school juristic person must be deemed to have lost objective legitimacy of the decision on refusal of reappointment by exercising objective duty of care in light of the standards of general university. In such a case, whether such decision on refusal of reappointment has lost objective legitimacy should be determined by whether there exists substantial reason to assume liability for damages to the university by comprehensively taking into account the contents and nature of the reason for refusal of reappointment, the degree of contribution of the relevant teacher in the process of examination of reappointment, the degree or degree of the reason for refusal of reappointment, the existence and content of the reason for refusal of reappointment, and the whole progress of the examination of reappointment, other than the specified grounds for refusal of reappointment, etc.

Where tort of a school juristic person is recognized through such determination, a teacher of a private university who could have been reappointed if he/she had been duly reappointed may claim for property damage equivalent to his/her wages during the period during which he/she could have been appointed as a teacher if he/she had not committed such illegal act (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da262, Mar. 9, 2006, etc.). The scope of the period during which he/she could be reappointed should be determined individually by comprehensively taking into account such factors as the degree of general strictness of the standards for examination for reappointment of the relevant university and the criteria for examination by academic area (personal, social, natural department, etc.). The scope of the period during which he/she could be reappointed should not be limited to the amount equivalent to the wages during the pertinent period during which he/she refused reappointment of the relevant university.

Meanwhile, in order for a private university teacher to claim consolation money on the ground that he was suffering from a separate mental pain other than property damage as mentioned above due to the illegal refusal of reappointment, if the school foundation intentionally refused reappointment on the ground of another name under the intention to find the relevant teacher in the university without any grounds for refusal of reappointment, or if it objectively apparent that the fact which was the ground for refusal of reappointment does not constitute grounds for examination of reappointment or cannot constitute grounds for refusal of reappointment under the personnel regulations, etc., or with due care, it is obvious that the university's abuse of discretion in the examination of reappointment cannot be justified under our sound social norms or social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da6823, Apr. 23, 1996; 2006Da30730, Jun. 26, 2008).

B. As to the liabilities of the school juristic person before the ruling of inconsistency with the Constitution was rendered in 2003

However, as seen earlier, the former Private School Act prior to the amendment did not have any provision on the prior procedure for the reappointment of faculty members of private universities, who are appointed by the fixed-term appointment system for university faculty members, and the grounds for refusal of reappointment and the procedure for remedy after the decision of inconsistency with the Constitution in 2003 or the Supreme Court en banc Decision 2000Du7735 Decided April 22, 2004, the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court, prior to the ruling of inconsistency with the Constitution of the school juristic person, etc. and the Constitutional Court, are understood as the act of free discretion of the person who is excluded from judicial review, unless there are special circumstances such as the fact that there are mandatory provisions on the reappointment of faculty members of national universities, public universities, and private universities, who are appointed by the fixed-term appointment system for university faculty members, or that there are continuous renewal of the appointment contract, and thus there is a "influent employment relationship."

Under the circumstances of the established legal interpretation of the private school juristic person, the right to file an application for review of reappointment, which is recognized as a change in the current legal interpretation following the amendment of the Private School Act and the enforcement of the Special Act on Remedies and Remedies after 2003, is deemed as having been able to recognize or avoid the outcome of the rights or infringement of legal interests of the private school teachers, and thus, the liability for damages is not a requirement to comply with the generally interpreted norm or an expectation to fulfill the duty of due diligence. Unless there are special circumstances, the circumstances are taken into account, such as: (a) the right to file an application for review of reappointment, which is recognized as a change in the current legal interpretation following the amendment of the Private School Act and the enforcement of the Special Act on Remedies and Remedies; and (b) the right to file an application for review of reappointment, which is held by the private school juristic person before the enforcement of the amended Private School Act, and thus, (c) the right to file a petition for damages with the school juristic person, barring any special circumstances, shall not be held liable for damages.

In this regard, Supreme Court Decision 2003Da3262 Decided March 9, 2006 ruled that, as long as the amended Private School Act applies retroactively, the illegality of refusal of reappointment shall be re-examineed according to the criteria for review of new reappointment under the amended Private School Act, unless the amended Private School Act applies retroactively. Supreme Court Decision 2003Da52647 Decided March 9, 2006 also applies retroactively to the amended Private School Act: (a) it was reversed on the ground that the court below understood the claim for payment of money as a teacher only as a claim for the payment of wages under the premise that the status as a teacher is maintained; and (b) it was reversed on the ground that the court below did not properly examine whether the claim for payment of money is asserted or not; and (c) each of the above Supreme Court Decision 2003Da52647 Decided March 9, 2006 determined that the determination of illegality of the decision on refusal of reappointment may vary from the former Private School Act, and it did not separately determine the subjective elements of tort.

C. As to the liabilities of school juristic persons after the decision of inconsistency with the Constitution was rendered in 2003

As seen earlier, the Constitutional Court rendered a ruling of inconsistency with the Constitution in 2003 on the grounds that the legislative absence of the procedure for the review of reappointment and the procedure for remedy after the fact that the former Private School Act violated Article 31(6) of the Constitution, thereby rendering a ruling of inconsistency with the Constitution on the grounds that the legal principle of inconsistency with the Constitution regarding the procedure for review of reappointment and the procedure for remedy after the review of the former Private School Act violates Article 31(6) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court determined that the fixed-term university faculty members should have an opportunity to state their position prior to the revocation of reappointment or an opportunity to refuse the reappointment, and that there should be an institutional device to raise any dispute after the rejection of reappointment. Ultimately, this can be understood as a ruling on the premise that the right to request a fair review of reappointment, which is the right to request a fair review of the reappointment, is recognized, and as long as it has been confirmed by a judicial institution to have the right to request a review of reappointment, it is likely to be liable for damages if a school juristic person still fails to resume the procedure for the relevant teacher whose decision of

However, the procedure of reappointment is normally conducted in the order of application for reappointment, examination of reappointment, and determination of whether to be reappointed. The determination of refusal of reappointment is based on the premise of the intention of the application for reappointment. If the decision of refusal of reappointment has already been made in the examination of reappointment and the retirement measures have already been taken due to the expiration of the term of appointment, the procedure of reappointment shall be regarded as completed in accordance with the general concept of the parties. Therefore, even if a school foundation has an obligation to review the reappointment because the decision of refusal of reappointment has been denied due to procedural or substantive reasons, and the violation of such obligation has an obligation to review the

Therefore, even if it is confirmed that there was a right to apply for review of reappointment against a teacher of a private university, as a result of the inconsistency with the Constitution in 2003, it is not reasonable to promptly give a school juristic person any legal disadvantage on the ground of nonperformance of the duty of review as to the disposition of refusal of reappointment in the past, and the liability of a school juristic person due to the illegal refusal of reappointment can be limited to only after the time when the relevant teacher is objectively confirmed as the applicant for review. Meanwhile, the relevant teacher’s request for review may be expressed directly through the act of urging or requesting the examination of reappointment to the school juristic person, but it can be confirmed by the act of demanding confirmation of invalidity of the decision of refusal of reappointment against

Furthermore, in order for a school juristic person to be held liable for property damage on the ground that the school juristic person did not resume the procedure for review of reappointment despite such fact, as seen earlier, it shall be recognized intentionally or by negligence as to the measures taken by such school juristic person. Thus, the school juristic person's failure to resume the procedure for examination of reappointment is not deemed justifiable in the past. Thus, the intention or negligence of the school juristic person in relation to the ground for refusal of reappointment in the past, the degree of contribution of the relevant school juristic person in the procedure for examination of reappointment, the explanation or degree of such refusal, the existence and content of the relevant school juristic person's refusal of reappointment in addition to the grounds for refusal of reappointment in the procedure for examination of reappointment, and the whole progress of the examination of reappointment, shall be determined on the basis of whether the school juristic person's failure to perform objective duty of care is recognized as having lost objective legitimacy. Furthermore, in order to claim consolation money to a school juristic person on the same ground shall also meet the requirements as seen in the above paragraph (a) above.

D. As to the Plaintiff’s liability for damages by Defendant of this case

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the records, the Plaintiff’s dismissal against Defendant 1, Defendant 2 on August 31, 1997, Defendant 4 on February 28, 1999, and Defendant 4 on February 29, 2004, and the Plaintiff’s dismissal refusal of reappointment on February 29, 2004. According to the Plaintiff’s Teachers Personnel Management Regulations, Defendant 1, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 2, Defendant 4, and Defendant 4, respectively, were born in 2018, 2013, and 2023 after the retirement age (65 years), respectively. Meanwhile, in this case, the Defendants sought compensation for property and mental damage of reinstatement from the time they were refused to be reappointed to the time of their reappointment or from the time of their mental dismissal, respectively.

First, as to the claim for damages filed by Defendant 1 and 2, the above Defendants can be reinstated until they reach the above retirement age after they reached the retirement age in 2018 or 2013. As such, even though the above Defendants cannot be liable for damages until they reach the above retirement age in 2003, the Plaintiff may be liable for damages if the Plaintiff did not perform the duty of reexamination and the Plaintiff’s intent or negligence is acknowledged in the course of the Plaintiff’s request for reexamination. The lower court should review the time of confirmation of the above Defendants’ request for reexamination after the decision of inconsistency with the Constitution was rendered in 2003 and then determine whether the Plaintiff is liable for damages according to the above determination criteria if the Plaintiff still fails to perform the duty of reexamination even after the Plaintiff’s request for reexamination was made.

Nevertheless, the lower court, without examining the Plaintiff’s intention or negligence, presumed that if the decision to refuse reappointment of the instant case was unlawful without examining the Plaintiff’s intention or negligence, the tort was established immediately and the Plaintiff is liable to compensate for damages. On the ground that the short-term extinctive prescription has expired three years after the time of the decision to refuse reappointment, all of the Defendants’ claim for damages is dismissed, and the lower court did not first examine whether the Plaintiff was liable for damages after the

Next, in relation to the claim for damages filed by Defendant 4, the health team, the above defendant, after the decision of inconsistency with the Constitution was rendered in 2003, and in this case, it is confirmed that the pertinent teacher had his intention to reject the reappointment, and thus, if the plaintiff failed to perform his duty to examine the reappointment and such plaintiff's intention or negligence is recognized, the liability for damages can be recognized against the plaintiff. The court below should determine whether the plaintiff's liability for damages exists in accordance with the above judgment criteria.

Nevertheless, the lower court, without examining the Plaintiff’s intention or negligence, concluded that if the decision to refuse the reappointment of the instant case is unlawful, the tort was established immediately and the Plaintiff is liable to compensate for damages, and accepted the Defendant’s claim for damages only for three years of reappointment as indicated in that decision.

In conclusion, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the elements for establishing liability for damages caused by refusal of reappointment and the scope of establishing liability for damages caused by the inconsistency with the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, which led to failure to exhaust all necessary deliberations. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the part on damages incurred after February 27, 2003, which was decided by the Constitutional Court Decision of 2003 as to the claim for damages by Defendant 1 and 2, and the claim for damages by Defendant 4 cannot be reversed.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, of the part against Defendant 1 and 2 in the judgment of the court below against the principal lawsuit and counterclaim, the part of the claim for confirmation of existence of the damage obligation and the claim for damages after February 27, 2003, the part of the claim for confirmation of invalidity of the decision of refusal of reappointment among the part against Defendant 3, and the part of the claim for confirmation of existence of the damage obligation and the claim for damages among the part against Defendant 3, the part of the main lawsuit and counterclaim against Defendant 4, shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The remaining appeals by the plaintiff, Defendant 1 and 2 shall be dismissed, respectively. It is so decided

Justices Cha Han-sung (Presiding Justice)

arrow
심급 사건
-대구고등법원 2008.7.4.선고 2007나8205
참조조문