(영문) 서울고등법원 춘천재판부 2016.4.20.선고 2015나1982 판결

The judgment of the first instance court shall be revoked. The defendant's revocation of appointment against the plaintiff on August 18, 2014 made by the defendant against the plaintiff shall be null and void.

The defendant confirmed that it was 100,000 won and the purport and claim of this case against the plaintiff.

The amount calculated by 20% per annum from the day after the delivery of a copy of the application for change to the day of full payment.

H. D. D.

Reasons

The reason why our court should explain this case is the same as that of the part of the judgment of the court of first instance.

Therefore, it is accepted as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. (The plaintiff is also at the trial court.)

Although her mother asserts that C did not make an illegal solicitation with respect to the employment of the plaintiff, he/she may not make an unlawful solicitation; however, he/she may

Article 103 of the Civil Act, even if the appointment contract of this case is proved before the plaintiff, including the witness D's testimony

the first instance court's findings and judgments are insufficient to reverse the determination of the anti-social order;

There is no counter-proof. Rather, according to D’s testimony by a witness of the trial court, E, who was the chief director of the defendant E, the plaintiff

following the date appointment becomes final and conclusive, C demanded C to pay the school development fund;

The annual income that the Plaintiff may obtain as an employee of the administrative office of F High School falls short of 20 million won.

C paid 20,000 won in cash as required by E as a school development fund;

D even if it is a treasurer in charge of the school development fund, C is not the principal of the school development fund, but the principal.

Recognizing the fact that the school development fund has been issued directly to E and that the account has not been kept as the school development fund.

money paid by C in connection with illegal solicitation of the school development fund paid by C. 20 million won

It is reasonable to see it as above.)

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of appeal are fully borne by the plaintiff who has lost.

It is so decided as per Disposition.