logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.05.26 2016나2080428
전보발령 무효확인 청구의 소
Text

1. The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are all dismissed.

2. Costs arising from an appeal and an incidental appeal shall be respectively.

Reasons

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

A. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning the instant case is next to the judgment of the first instance.

The decision of the court of first instance is the same as that of the decision of the court of first instance, except for the revision as stated in the following paragraph and addition of the decision in the trial as stated in paragraph (2).

B. Part 1) The second part of the judgment of the court of first instance added “from August 2013 to “from around July 2013” as “from around July 2013.2) The third part of the judgment of the court of first instance No. 19 (hereinafter “former Articles of Incorporation”).

3) Article 4-5 of the first instance court’s Decision 4-5 states “Natural Campus, Students’ Career Development Center, Students’ Career Development Center, and Students’ Career Development Center” as “Natural Campus Students’ Career Development Center, Human Campus Students’ Career Development Center,” and Article 4-5 of the first instance court’s Decision 4 states “A’s subparagraphs 1 through 4 and A’s evidence 6.”

5) The court of first instance dismissed the “Plaintiff” under the 5th sentence of the first instance court’s 2nd sentence as the “Party” and the 5th sentence through 10th sentence of the first instance judgment as the “former Private School Act (amended by Act No. 13938, Feb. 3, 2016; hereinafter the same).

7) The “instant transfer order” of No. 2-5 and No. 9 of the first instance court Decision No. 6 is deemed to be the “instant transfer order,” respectively. 8) The “the date of instant transfer order” of No. 11 and No. 19 of the first instance court Decision No. 7 of the first instance court decision is deemed to be the “the date of instant transfer order,” and the “instant transfer order” of No. 18 of the same party is deemed to be the “instant transfer order,” respectively.

9) The “paragraph 1 of Paragraph 1” of Paragraph 1 of Paragraph 2 of Paragraph 8 of the first instance trial is understood as “paragraph 1”. 10) The “fact-finding and evidence” of the first instance court No. 5 of the first instance judgment is understood as “the facts and macrosive evidence recognized in the foregoing.”

11. It can be seen as “the fact that the instant transfer order did not have much business necessity as seen earlier,” from 10th to 14th, in the first instance court judgment.

arrow