2010du4971 Revocation of revocation of dismissal

Plaintiff:

Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Min Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant

Korea

Litigation performer lowest heat

Government Law Firm Corporation, Attorneys Seo Young-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 2009Du14479 Decided February 3, 2010

August 19, 2010

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Although a continuous contract is based on the trust relationship between the parties, it can be terminated on the ground that the trust relationship has been destroyed. However, in order to terminate the contract for this reason, one party’s breach of the contractual obligation during the existence of the contract in question has to the extent that it is difficult to maintain the trust relationship as it is, and the contract cannot be unilaterally terminated on the ground that the trust relationship has been destroyed even if it does not reach the degree (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du5948, Nov. 26, 2002, etc.).

2. The court below acknowledged that the continuous contractual relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant was formed by appointing the plaintiff as the auditor of the Namnam University Hospital for the term of three years. On the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's expression of intent of dismissal of the Minister of Education, Science and Technology was invalid on the ground that the plaintiff was unfairly paid expenses for the specific business expenses, ① the plaintiff has been faithfully working as the auditor, and there was no particular disciplinary action before the case, ② the provision on the payment of business expenses of the Jeonnam University Hospital provides abstract and comprehensive provisions such as "the purpose of the specific business expenses" related to external activities, expenses incurred in conducting duties and exchanges of information with other hospitals and related institutions, and expenses related to other duties. The above provision appears to have been given discretion to a certain extent to the employer regarding the use of the specific business expenses under the above provision, ③ it cannot be viewed that the agreement relationship cannot be seen as null and void on the ground that it did not strictly manage or supervise the use of the specific business expenses, ③ it could not be seen that the plaintiff's expression of intent was destroyed and void on the ground that it cannot be seen as the above.

3. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, we affirm and accept such judgment of the court below, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the termination of contracts under public law, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon

Justices Kim Young-young

Justices Kim Gi-hwan

Justices Min Il-young