1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts and

2. The grounds for this part of the parties’ assertion are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance, except for the case where “ August 9, 2012” is deemed to be “ August 10, 2012,” and the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. As such, this part shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court concerning the cause of the claim is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from No. 5 to No. 1 to No. 3), except for the addition of the following items after No. 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, this part is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

The Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s liability should be limited to 50% of the Defendant’s occupational breach of trust by ordering the Plaintiff’s director G and F not to follow the Defendant’s statement to his employees, and that the Defendant’s liability should be limited to 50% of the Defendant’s occupational breach of trust, such as defamation against the Defendant and accompanying the relevant business entity. In the case of intentional tort, where the result does not go against the principle of equity or the principle of good faith, limitation of liability based on the comparative negligence or the principle of equity may be possible. However, in the event that comparative negligence is recognized, such as fraud, embezzlement, breach of trust, etc., if the harmful act would ultimately bring about a result contrary to the ideology of equity or the principle of good faith, comparative negligence should not be allowed (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2006Da16758, 1675, Oct. 25, 207; Supreme Court en banc Decision 2013Da3765, Mar. 16, 2013).