[1] Criteria for determining illegality of sexual expression act

[2] The case holding that sexual words and actions against university professors constitute a tort

[3] Whether it is reasonable to limit the establishment of so-called sexual harassment to an employment relationship or separate it from a conditional sexual harassment and an environmental sexual harassment (negative)

[4] The meaning of "as to the execution of affairs", which is an element for employer's liability, and the criteria for its determination

[5] In a case where sexual harassment occurred on the job took place in a secret and personal manner without business relationship, whether an employer is liable for damages on the ground of a violation of the duty to protect under the employment contract (negative)

[1] Whether a sexual expression act is unlawful shall be determined depending on whether it is permissible to the extent acceptable in light of the sound common sense and practice of the community, i.e., good morals or social order, and it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that a person whose personality right was infringed due to the other party’s sexual expression act suffers from mental suffering, in full view of the specific circumstances, such as both parties’ age or relation, place and situation where the act was committed, whether the act was committed, whether the act was sexual motive or intent, the other party’s explicit or presumed response to the act, contents and degree of the act, whether the act was committed one time or for a short period, or whether the act was continued.

[2] 피해자가 엔엠알기기 담당 유급조교로서 정식 임용되기 전후 2, 3개월 동안, 가해자가 기기의 조작 방법을 지도하는 과정에서 피해자의 어깨, 등, 손 등을 가해자의 손이나 팔로 무수히 접촉하였고, 복도 등에서 피해자와 마주칠 때면 피해자의 등에 손을 대거나 어깨를 잡았고, 실험실에서 "요즘 누가 시골 처녀처럼 이렇게 머리를 땋고 다니느냐."고 말하면서 피해자의 머리를 만지기도 하였으며, 피해자가 정식 임용된 후에는 단둘이서 입방식을 하자고 제의하기도 하고, 교수연구실에서 피해자를 심부름 기타 명목으로 수시로 불러들여 위아래로 훑어 보면서 몸매를 감상하는 듯한 태도를 취하여 피해자가 불쾌하고 곤혹스러운 느낌을 가졌다면, 화학과 교수 겸 엔엠알기기의 총책임자로서 사실상 피해자에 대하여 지휘·감독관계에 있는 가해자의 위와 같은 언동은 분명한 성적인 동기와 의도를 가진 것으로 보여지고, 그러한 성적인 언동은 비록 일정 기간 동안에 한하는 것이지만 그 기간 동안만큼은 집요하고 계속적인 까닭에 사회통념상 일상생활에서 허용되는 단순한 농담 또는 호의적이고 권유적인 언동으로 볼 수 없고, 오히려 피해자로 하여금 성적 굴욕감이나 혐오감을 느끼게 하는 것으로서 피해자의 인격권을 침해한 것이며, 이러한 침해행위는 선량한 풍속 또는 사회질서에 위반하는 위법한 행위이고, 이로써 피해자가 정신적으로 고통을 입었음은 경험칙상 명백하다고 한 사례.

[3] The issue of illegality of so-called sexual harassment is a new type of tort in that it is not exposed to legal issues but has been silent or resolved between the parties, or there are many concerns about frequent problems in the future. However, in discussing this issue, it is sufficient to understand it as a type of general tort and to understand it as a type of tort, and whether it is unlawful or not, limited to employment relationship, sexual harassment constituting a tort is divided into conditional sexual harassment and environmental sexual harassment. In particular, in the case of sexual harassment in environment, the form of such sexual harassment is significant and thorough. In order to establish a tort, the perpetrator's sexual speech and behavior itself must unfairly interfere with the victim's work and create a hostile work environment, thereby hindering the victim's ability to perform his/her duties or seriously affecting his/her mental stability, and therefore, the victim claiming compensation for damages should not be determined by the victim's sexual harassment, but should not be determined by the victim's dismissal or interference with the victim's sexual harassment.

[4] The phrase "in relation to the performance of an employee's business", which is an element for an employer's liability under Article 756 of the Civil Code, means that if the employee's unlawful act objectively appears to be related to the employee's business activities, performance of business affairs, or performance of business affairs, it shall be deemed that such act was conducted without considering the offender's subjective circumstances. Whether it is objectively related to the employee's performance of business affairs should be determined by considering the degree related to the employee's original duties, and the degree of the employee's unlawful act, and the degree of

[5] The employment relationship or labor relationship is a so-called continuous credit relationship, which is based on personal trust relationship. As to the burden of an employee to faithfully provide his/her service in an employment contract, the employer, in addition to his/her duty to pay remuneration to the employee, should respect the employee's personality and protect the employee, take necessary measures to prevent the employee from suffering losses in performing his/her duty, and protect the employee's life, health, wind, etc., and bear the duty of protecting and aiding the employee by providing a pleasant working environment. However, it is natural that an employee's sexual harassment against another employee is not related to his/her duties, and it is not related to the perpetrator's sexual harassment against the other employee, and if it is found that the perpetrator's sexual harassment was committed closely and individually, and the victim was aware or known as the victim did not disclose it, it cannot be said that the employer failed to perform his/her duty to protect the victim under the employment contract even in such case.

[1] Article 750 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 750 of the Civil Act / [3] Article 750 of the Civil Act / [4] Article 756 of the Civil Act / [5] Articles 390 and 655 of the Civil Act, Article 17 of the Labor Standards

[4] Supreme Court Decision 86Da39146 delivered on February 25, 1992 (Gong1992, 1999, 11), Supreme Court Decision 95Da46890 delivered on January 26, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 765)

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Chang-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and two others (Attorneys Im Im Im-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 94Na15358 delivered on July 25, 1995

The part of the lower judgment regarding Defendant 1 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. All appeals by the Plaintiff against Defendant Kim Jong-chul and Korea are dismissed, and the costs of appeal regarding the dismissal of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff's assertion and the facts found by the court below

A. As to physical contact with machinery education

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected Defendant 1’s motion to operate the above 6th of June 2, 192 or 3th of the above 6th of the Plaintiff’s motion to operate the above 4th of the Plaintiff’s motion to operate the 6th of the above 6th of the Plaintiff’s motion to operate the 6th of the above 7th of the Plaintiff’s motion to operate the 1st of the above 196th of the Plaintiff’s motion to operate the 6th of the above 7th of the Plaintiff’s motion to operate the 1st of the above 6th of the Plaintiff’s motion to operate the 6th of the Plaintiff’s motion to operate the 1st of the above 6th of the Plaintiff’s motion to operate the 5th of the Plaintiff’s motion to operate the 1st of the 19th of the Plaintiff’s motion to operate the 1st of the 19th of the Plaintiff’s motion to operate the 2nd of the 1st of the Plaintiff’s motion.

B. As to other sexual acts

원심은 피고 1가 1992. 6.경부터 8.경까지 사이에 서울대학교 23동 108호 앞 복도 등에서 원고와 마주칠 때면 의도적으로 원고의 등에 손을 대거나 어깨를 잡는 경우가 많았고, 같은 해 8.경에는 22동 309호실 실험실에서 0b요즘 누가 시골 처녀처럼 이렇게 머리를 땋고 다니느냐.0c고 말하면서 원고의 머리를 만지기도 하고, 원고가 정식 임용된 동년 8. 10.경 단둘이서 입방식을 하자고 제의하기도 하고, 같은 무렵 23동 4층 교수연구실에서 원고를 심부름 기타 명목으로 수시로 불러들여 위아래로 훑어 보면서 몸매를 감상하는 듯한 태도를 취하기도 하였다는 원고의 주장에 대하여, 대체로 원고의 주장과 같은 위 피고의 언동은 인정된다고 판시하였다.

C. As to the act of offering books, etc.

The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's attitude against the plaintiff was changed after October 192, 192, because the defendant 1 demanded the plaintiff to accompany him to the public prosecution under the pretext that the plaintiff would grow up with the two dynamics, and the plaintiff would be able to take a little amount of the lux length for the luxic acid in the luxsan, and the plaintiff would be able to take a luxal luxal lux in the defendant's office if the luxary luxary lux is difficult, and the plaintiff's refusal was expressed that he would clearly refuse to do so. The court below rejected it on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge it, other than the evidence not believed, as stated in its reasoning.

D. As to the existence of sexual prosecution against the defendant

The court below rejected Defendant 1’s assertion that Defendant 1 attempted to have sexual access, such as requesting physical contact and accompanying accompanying of documents, even to Nonparty 1, who had been a former assistant assistant assistant assistant assistant assistant assistant assistant assistant assistant assistant non-party non-party non-party non-party non-party non-party non-party non-party non-party non-party non-party non-party non-party non-party non-party non-party non-party non-party 1

E. As to whether there were interference and retaliation against the Plaintiff

원심판결 이유에 의하면, 원심은 원고의 다음과 같은 주장 즉, 피고 1가 1992. 10.경 산책 제의를 하였다가 원고로부터 명시적인 거부를 당하자 종래의 호의적인 태도에서 돌변하여 업무상 부당한 간섭과 불리한 조치로서 정상적인 업무처리를 방해하다가 결국에는 원고에 대한 재임용추천을 거부하고 사실상 해임하였다는 주장에 대하여, 거시 증거에 의하여 (1) 원고가 담당하는 엔엠알기기는 종래부터 학생들이 위 기기를 직접 사용하여 시료측정을 하는 것은 제한되어 왔고 원칙적으로 위 기기 담당 조교가 학생들의 신청을 받아 시료측정을 하여 주도록 하되, 다만 피고 1 실험실 소속 대학원생들의 경우에는 예외적으로 위 기기 담당 조교를 거치지 않고 직접 위 기기를 사용하여 시료측정을 하는 것이 허용되어 온 사실, (2) 그런데 원고가 위 엔엠알기기 담당 조교로서 근무를 시작한 이래 변리사시험을 준비중이었던 원고의 근무태도와 관련하여 위 기기를 이용하는 대학원생들로부터 원고가 평소에 제자리를 잘 지키지 않으며 측정의뢰를 해도 제때에 스펙트럼을 찍어주지 않는다는 등의 불만이 있어 왔으며, 학과에서 의뢰된 시료처리를 원고가 2-3일간 지체시켜 대학원생들로부터 불만을 사게 된 사실, (3) 특히 원고와 위 기기를 공동으로 사용하는 대학원생들과의 사이에는 위 기기의 사용시간 등의 문제로 충돌이 잦았고, 실험실 선임자와 기기 사용 문제로 다투는 등 인화관계에 문제를 드러내었고 화학과에서 위 피고의 지도 아래 박사과정을 이수한 소외 류권영과 한편이 되어 소외 채종근을 위시한 대학원생들과 대립하였기 때문에 이들의 감정대립으로 인하여 실험실의 연구 분위기는 저해된 사실, (4) 1993. 3.경에 이르러 피고 1 지도하의 대학원생들이 늘어나고 다른 실험실에 있던 동종의 엔엠알기기가 고장으로 가동이 중단되어 원고가 담당하던 엔엠알기기의 사용량이 증가하면서 위와 같은 불만과 갈등은 더욱 증폭되었는데, 이에 위 피고는 위 기기 사용을 둘러싼 위와 같은 분쟁의 원인이 원고의 근무태만과 독선적인 기기 운영에 있다고 판단하고 원고에게 위 엔엠알기기의 사용에 있어서 위 피고 지도하에 있는 대학원생들도 배려하고 그들과 원만히 지낼 것을 지시하였으며, 아울러 위 피고는 종전에 원고의 편의를 고려하여 대학원생들과 함께 지낼 수 있도록 22동 309호 실험실에 제공되었던 책상의 사용을 금지하고 원래 원고의 근무 위치인 23동 108호 엔엠알기기실에서 근무하도록 지시한 사실, (5) 위 피고의 이러한 조치들에도 불구하고 원고의 엔엠알기기 운영을 둘러싼 화학과 내에서의 불만과 갈등은 수그러들지 않았고, 또 1993. 5.경에는 화학과 유기공동기기실에 새로운 실험기기를 설치함에 있어서 당시 위 피고는 예산절감을 위하여 대학원생들과 함께 직접 위 공사에 참여하여 기기설치대 교체작업과 냉동기 설치작업 등을 2주간 가량 계속하였는데, 원고는 위 작업이 계속되는 동안 위 공동기기실의 업무가 자신의 업무와는 무관함을 이유로 수수방관하고 전혀 협조를 하지 않았고 이 때문에 위 피고로부터 책망을 들은 사실, (6) 교육공무원임용령(대통령령 제4303호) 및 서울대학교 전임교수 및 조교임용규정(제849호)에 의하여 유급조교의 임용은 해당 학과의 학과장이 학과 내에 공고하거나 학과 교수의 추천을 받아 교수회의의 동의를 얻어 학장에게 추천하고 대학인사위원회의 심의를 거쳐 총장이 임용하도록 되어 있고, 임용기간이 만료된 조교는 자동면직되나 필요한 경우에 한하여 학과장이 학과 교수회의의 동의를 얻어 재추천할 수 있게 되어 있었지만, 원고의 근무태도로 인한 불만과 갈등 때문에 위 피고는 원고의 재임용을 추천하지 않았으며, 1993. 6. 15. 화학과 교수회의에서는 원고를 재임용하지 아니하고 새로이 후임 조교를 임용하기로 결정되자, 같은 해 6. 25. 위 피고는 원고에게 교수회의의 결정사항을 전달하고, 후임 조교의 업무교육이 시작되므로 더 이상 출근할 필요가 없으며, 엔엠알기기도 더 이상의 사용을 중지할 것을 지시하였으며, 이에 원고는 교육공무원임용령(대통령령 제4303호) 제5조 제2항 및 제3항에서 정한 1년간의 임용시한에 따라 원고는 1993. 8. 31. 자동면직되게 된 사실을 인정함으로써, 피고 1가 원고에 대한 재임용추천을 하지 아니한 것은 원고가 위 피고의 성적 접근을 거부하였기 때문이 아니라 원고의 근무태도가 좋지 아니하였기 때문이라는 취지로 판단하여, 위 피고가 원고의 업무를 부당하게 간섭하고 보복해고를 하였다는 원고의 위 주장을 배척하였다.

2. The judgment of the court below on the plaintiff's claim against the defendants

A. As to the claim against Defendant 1

원심은 원고가 조교로서 근무하던 기간 중에 피고 1로부터 성적 괴롭힘을 받고 그에 불응함으로써 위 피고로부터 보복해고를 당하게 되었으므로 위 피고의 위 불법행위로 인하여 원고가 입은 손해의 배상을 구한다고 주장함에 대하여, 고용조건이나 근로환경에 관하여 성을 이유로 한 차별적 취급을 함으로써 불법행위가 성립하는 성적 괴롭힘에는, 성적행위에 대한 거절로 인하여 해고나 승진거절 등 고용상의 차별적 처우를 가져오는 조건적 성적 괴롭힘과 성적행위 자체가 그 피해자로 하여금 성적 굴욕감이나 혐오감을 품게하여 그의 업무수행이나 근로환경에 부당하고 심각한 불이익을 가져오는 환경형 성적 괴롭힘으로 구분할 수 있는바, (1) 우선 조건적 성적 괴롭힘의 성부에 관하여 보건대, 원고가 부당한 위 피고의 차별적 처우였다고 주장하는 대부분의 사실은 위 피고의 원고에 대한 업무지시권의 재량범위 내에 드는 사항이었을 뿐 그것이 설사 원고에게 부담이 되고 마음에 들지 않는 일이었다고 하더라도 그러한 이유만으로 차별대우였다고 볼 수는 없고, 나아가 원래부터 1년 기한부로 임용된 원고의 임용관계는 그 기간이 경과함으로써 당연히 종료되고, 원고가 재임용을 계속받아 왔다든가 또는 재임용이 확실하게 관례화되어 있다고 하는 사정이 보이지 않는 이 사건에서 원고는 해고당하였다고 할 수 없을 뿐 아니라 위 피고가 원고의 재임용추천을 하지 않은 것도 과의 교수나 대학원생들이 모두 원고의 불성실한 근무태도를 불만스럽게 생각하였기 때문이었을 뿐 그것이 보복으로 인한 것이었다고는 볼 수 없으므로, 조건적 성적 괴롭힘이 성립한다고 할 수 없고, (2) 또한 환경형의 성적 괴롭힘의 성부에 관하여 보건대, 환경형의 성적 괴롭힘은 그 행위로 인하여 원고에게 정신적 고통을 가하는 심하고 철저한 행위임을 요하고, 그것은 원고 개인뿐 아니라 합리적으로 사고하는 통상의 여성에 대하여도 일할 능력을 저해하거나 정신적 건강에 심각한 영향을 준다는 입증이 있어야 한다 할 것인데, 원고가 성적 괴롭힘으로서 주장하는 위 피고의 언동 가운데 인정되는 사실은 대부분 업무수행상 우연히 또는 의도적으로 빚어진 수차례의 가벼운 신체접촉행위이거나, 다소 짓궂지만 노골적으로 성적인 것은 아닌 농담 또는 호의적이고 권유적인 언동에 불과하였고, 설사 위 피고에게 성적 접근의 의도가 있었다 하더라도 그 행위의 악성은 경미한 것이어서 그것이 원고의 근무환경을 변경하여 성적인 모멸감을 가져오고 굴욕적인 근무환경을 조성한 것이라고 볼 수는 없으므로, 환경형 성적 괴롭힘도 성립하지 아니한다고 판시하여, 위 피고의 행위가 불법행위를 구성함을 전제로 하는 이 사건 청구를 기각하였다.

B. As to claims against Defendant Kim Jong-chul and Korea

The court below rejected the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 1 as the supervisor of defendant 1's tort, since the defendant Kim Jong-chul, a president of Seoul University at the time, who supervised the work of the defendant 1 on behalf of the defendant 1, the employer of the defendant 1, neglected his duty to predict and prevent the tort in advance, and subsequently concealed the defendant 1's tort. Thus, the defendant 1 is liable for compensating the plaintiff's damages due to the tort of this case or for compensating the plaintiff as his own tort. The defendant Republic of Korea is liable for compensating the damages suffered by his own tort as the employer of the defendant 1 and the defendant Kim Jong-chul as his employee, or for compensating the plaintiff's damages due to his own tort. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant 1 did not constitute the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 1 for compensating for damages due to his violation of his duty to protect the plaintiff's personal dignity or sexual discrimination in relation to the plaintiff's work performance as a party to the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant 1.

3. We examine the grounds of appeal as to the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 1 (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

A. As to facts Nos. 2 and 3 (Recognition of Facts)

In light of the records, we affirm all the measures of the court below admitting only a part of the plaintiff's assertion and rejecting the remainder of the assertion as stated in its judgment, and there is no error of law such as logical rules such as theory of lawsuit, empirical rules, violation of the rules of evidence, and incomplete hearing. The arguments are not only to criticize the selection of evidence and the recognition of facts, which are all the exclusive matters of the court below,

B. Regarding Nos. 1 and 4 (legal scenarios)

(1) All citizens shall have dignity and value as human beings and have the right to pursue happiness, and in order to realize this, personal interests or personality rights of each individual shall be respected and protected by law. In particular, the expression of sexual interest to one other in a male and female relationship shall be permissible as natural, but it shall not be permitted in an unlawful manner to the extent that it damages the dignity of human beings and causes emotional distress by infringing on the other party’s personality rights.

In addition, the illegality of a certain sexual expression act shall be determined according to whether it is acceptable in light of the sound common sense and practice of the community, i.e., whether it is in violation of good customs or social order, by taking into account the specific circumstances such as the two parties’ age or relationship, place and situation where the act was committed, whether the act was sexual motive or intent, the other party’s explicit or presumed response to the act, the contents and degree of the act, whether the act was committed one time or for a short period of time, and whether the act was continued. Moreover, it is obvious in light of empirical rule that a person whose personality right was infringed due to the other party’s sexual expression act causes emotional distress.

(2) 원심이 적법하게 인정한 바와 같이, 원고가 이 사건 엔엠알기기 담당 유급조교로서 정식 임용되기 전후 2, 3개월 동안, 피고 1가 기기의 조작 방법을 지도하는 과정에서 원고의 어깨, 등, 손 등을 위 피고의 손이나 팔로 무수히 접촉하였고, 복도 등에서 원고와 마주칠 때면 원고의 등에 손을 대거나 어깨를 잡았고, 실험실에서 0b요즘 누가 시골 처녀처럼 이렇게 머리를 땋고 다니느냐.0c고 말하면서 원고의 머리를 만지기도 하였으며, 원고가 정식 임용된 후에는 단둘이서 입방식을 하자고 제의하기도 하고, 교수연구실에서 원고를 심부름 기타 명목으로 수시로 불러들여 위아래로 훑어 보면서 몸매를 감상하는 듯한 태도를 취하여 원고로서는 불쾌하고 곤혹스러운 느낌을 가졌다는 것인바, 이러한 사실관계에 의하면 화학과 교수 겸 엔엠알기기의 총책임자로서 사실상 원고에 대하여 지휘·감독관계에 있는 피고 1의 위와 같은 언동은 분명한 성적인 동기와 의도를 가진 것으로 보여지고, 그러한 성적인 언동은 비록 일정기간 동안에 한하는 것이지만 그 기간 동안만큼은 집요하고 계속적인 까닭에 사회통념상 일상생활에서 허용되는 단순한 농담 또는 호의적이고 권유적인 언동으로 볼 수 없고, 오히려 원고로 하여금 성적 굴욕감이나 혐오감을 느끼게 하는 것으로서 원고의 인격권을 침해하였다고 할 것이고, 이러한 침해행위는 선량한 풍속 또는 사회질서에 위반하는 위법한 행위이고, 이로써 원고가 정신적으로 고통을 입었음은 경험칙상 명백하다 고 할 것이다.

Therefore, the above defendant's above sexual words and actions should constitute a tort, so the defendant 1 is responsible for compensating the plaintiff for mental damage suffered by the plaintiff.

In addition, the issue of illegality of the so-called sexual harassment is a new type of tort in that it is not exposed to legal issues but has been silent or resolved between the parties, or there are many concerns about frequent problems in the future. However, as seen above, it is sufficient to understand it as a type of general tort and to understand it as a type of tort and to understand it as a specific type of tort, and to distinguish sexual harassment constituting a tort as stated by the court below as limited to employment relationship, and as a special case of sexual harassment in environment, the attitude of such sexual harassment should reach a significant and thorough degree, and in order to establish tort, the sexual speech and behavior of the perpetrator must be deemed to have unfairly interfered with the victim's work and creating a hostile environment where the victim would have impeded the actual ability of the victim or significantly affected his mental stability, and therefore, it should be considered that the victim claimed compensation for damages due to sexual harassment of the perpetrator would not be able to have any unfair interference with the victim's dismissal or dismissal of the victim, or that it should not be considered that the victim was an unlawful interference with the victim's work.

(3) If so, the court below's rejection of the defendant 1's liability for damages caused by the tort against the plaintiff by the above defendant on the ground that the above sexual words and actions are not unlawful on the grounds as stated in its holding cannot be deemed to have committed an unlawful act by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the compensation for mental damage, such as the requirements, limitation, burden of proof and infringement of personal rights. The argument on this point has merit.

4. We examine the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal on the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Kim Jong-chul and Korea.

A. The phrase "in relation to the performance of an employee's business", which is an element for an employer's liability under Article 756 of the Civil Act, means that if the employee's unlawful act objectively appears to be objectively related to the employee's business activity, performance of business, or performance of business, without considering the offender's subjective circumstances. The issue of whether it is objectively related to the employee's performance of business shall be determined in consideration of the employee's original duties and the degree related to the act, and the degree of the employee's occurrence of damage and the degree of responsibility for the employer's lack of measures to prevent damage (see Supreme Court Decisions 86Meu1923, Nov. 22, 198; 91Da39146, Feb. 25, 1992; 95Da46890, Jan. 26, 196). According to factual relations, the act of the defendant 1's sexual harassment within the scope of his duties cannot be found to be closely related to the act within his official authority and authority.

Therefore, on the premise that Defendant 1’s act of sexual harassment is related to his business performance, the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Korea as the employer himself, and against Defendant Kim Jong-chul as the employer’s representative supervisor, shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles, but the conclusion that the Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed as a result is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles. The argument is without merit.

B. The employment relationship or labor relationship is a so-called continuous claim relationship, which is based on personal trust relationship. As to the burden of an employee to faithfully provide his/her service in an employment contract, the employer as well as his/her duty to respect and protect the employee’s personality and protect the employee from suffering any loss in performing his/her duty, and also bears the duty to protect and assist the employee by providing a pleasant working environment by providing the employee’s protection facilities for his/her life, health, wind, etc. However, as seen earlier, it is natural that Defendant 1’s sexual harassment act is not related to his/her duties, as well as that of Defendant 1’s sexual harassment act is committed closely and individually and as the Plaintiff did not disclose it. Thus, even in such a case, Defendant Republic of Korea, an employer, cannot be said to have fulfilled the duty to protect the Plaintiff, who is an employee under the employment contract.

Although there are different reasons, the lower court’s conclusion that dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for damages against Defendant Republic of Korea based on nonperformance of obligation under an employment contract is justifiable, and therefore, the argument is without merit.

C. Meanwhile, according to the records, Defendant Kim Jong-chul, the president of the Seoul National University, was aware or could have known in advance the facts of sexual harassment of Defendant 1, and did not appear to have attempted to conceal the facts of sexual harassment of Defendant 1 after the fact, and there is no evidence to acknowledge them otherwise. As seen earlier, the act of sexual harassment of Defendant 1 cannot be deemed to be related to the execution of duties of the above defendant. As such, Defendant Kim Jong-chul cannot be deemed to be liable for damages against the plaintiff as the illegal person. Although there are different reasons, the conclusion of the court below that dismissed the plaintiff's claim for damages against Defendant Kim Jong-chul is justifiable.

5. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below as to Defendant 1 is reversed and remanded. The plaintiff Kim Jong-chul and the appeal against Korea is dismissed. The costs of appeal as to the dismissed appeal are assessed against the plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)