1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the basic facts are as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. Defendant B, as the principal of the Plaintiff’s university, was a person in charge of school administration, such as the procedure for the appointment of new teachers, and was appointed as a teacher as if he was qualified even though he did not meet his qualification as a concurrent and former teacher. In particular, in the course of the appointment of a former teacher, Defendant B committed a breach of trust in the course of the appointment of a teacher by attending an interview and a resolution of the board of directors.

The president of the Plaintiff University F and the president of the department, who was well aware of the foregoing circumstances, recommended Defendant C, and Defendant C participated in the above breach of trust by filing an application for appointment without qualification.

Although the appointment of Defendant C was null and void due to the aforementioned Defendants’ tort, the Plaintiff sustained from March 1, 2005 to February 28, 201, 317,984,080 won of wages from March 1, 2005 to February 28, 201, and thus, the Defendants are liable to compensate for the damages.

B. Defendant C’s claim against Defendant C (Preliminary Claim) was newly appointed without being eligible to be appointed. During that process, Defendant C filed an application for reappointment with the Plaintiff University while hiding the fact that he actively participated in the act of breach of trust committed by Defendant B in the process, and its members were reappointed from the Plaintiff and received benefits during that period. Therefore, Defendant C is liable to compensate for damages equivalent to the total amount of benefits for such unlawful acts.

3. Determination

A. During the appointment process of Defendant C, 1 Plaintiff 1, 2004, 2004, 4 members including Defendant C and H were supported with the employment of Defendant C and former teachers. Defendant C and two remaining members, except H, were disqualified from the document review, and H was passed through the document review.

However, H was held on July 14, 2004.