All appeals are dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal on the Defendant’s property liability and scope of the Defendant’s property damage liability and the Defendant’s grounds of appeal, the lower court acknowledged the Defendant’s liability for damages on the ground that it was impossible for the Plaintiff to return to school position on the ground that the Plaintiff’s dismissal from office regardless of the Plaintiff’s intention was treated as a member of the Council, and was convicted of violating antipublic law after release, etc., due to the following: (a) the Plaintiff, who was on duty by the Central Information Department investigator under the Defendant, was forced to appear without complying with due process

Furthermore, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the period of calculating the Plaintiff’s lost earnings should be limited to the Plaintiff’s rehabilitation date, and determined that the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the Plaintiff for the amount of the Plaintiff’s lost earnings, which was deducted from the income that the Plaintiff could have obtained if the Plaintiff had worked as a teacher for the same period from June 16, 1976 to August 31, 199, which was the special employment day before the special employment day, on the grounds that the Plaintiff could continue to work as a teacher, without any Defendant’s tort.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and the record, the lower court erred in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the interim income mutual aid agreement, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, and by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding proximate causal relation.