logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구고등법원 2011.11.25 2010나6223
교수지위확인
Text

1. At the request of a change in exchange at the trial, the defendant shall:

A. The amount of KRW 553,39,646 and the above money to Plaintiff B.

Reasons

1. Scope of trial of the political party after remand;

A. The plaintiffs and the joint plaintiff A (hereinafter "A") of the trial before remanded the case to exchange the lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the decision to refuse reappointment and payment of damages in the court of first instance before remanding the case. The court of the trial before remanded the claim for confirmation of invalidity of the decision to refuse reappointment, but dismissed the claim for damages.

B. Accordingly, with respect to the claim for damages, the plaintiffs and Gap filed each appeal against the claim for nullification of the decision rejecting reappointment. The Supreme Court reversed only the part concerning the damages to the plaintiffs after February 27, 2003, among the part concerning the claim for damages in the judgment of the party prior to remand, and remanded to this court. The remaining appeals by the plaintiffs and the appeals by Gap and the defendant were dismissed.

C. Therefore, the part on the claim for nullification of the decision rejecting the reappointment of the plaintiffs and the part on the damages before February 26, 2003, "the part on the damages before and after the remanding to the extent that it has already been affirmed by the judgment of remanding to the extent that it does not fall under the scope of the judgment of the party after remanding to the same extent, and only the part on the damages after February 27, 2003 whose claim was finally changed in the trial of the party after

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The addition of the claim for damages due to illegal acts by the plaintiffs' assertion at the trial of the defendant is not only a significant delay in litigation due to the examination of whether liability for damages is established, scope, and extinctive prescription, but also a violation of the interests of the court, and thus, it is not permissible.

B. The Plaintiffs have reached the trial for confirmation of teachers’ status, and thus, constitute tort against the confirmation of invalidity and refusal of reappointment in the previous claim for confirmation of teachers’ status.

arrow