치-즈-루

🚨 “Problems with Some Media Coverage of the Dolphin Company Ruling” ✅ ADOR calculated the penalty at 4 billion won and filed a partial claim for only 1 billion won. This is similar to calculating Danielle’s penalty at 100 billion won while filing a partial claim for 30 billion won. 📍“The amount claimed in a partial lawsuit” and “the total amount recognized by the court” should be distinguished. ✅ In the first trial, the full 4 billion won penalty was recognized. From ADOR’s perspective, it could have pursued an additional claim for the remaining amount beyond the 1 billion won it had initially claimed. ✅ But on appeal, the total penalty itself was drastically reduced to 1 billion won. Unlike the first trial, which recognized the full 4 billion won calculated by ADOR, the appellate court limited the total penalty to 1 billion won. That is the key point. 📍The amount ADOR was ordered to pay right away may still be 1 billion won, but the total amount that could have supported an additional claim fell from 4 billion won to 1 billion won. That puts ADOR in a less favorable position than it was in after the first trial. ✅ At an earlier appellate hearing, Dolphin Company argued that the first trial’s ruling was contradictory: it recognized that there had been an oral agreement, yet imposed a penalty because there was no written consent. The appellate court also remarked, in effect, that Dolphin Company had stronger grounds for appeal. ✅ Yet these issues and the change in the ruling are pushed aside, while headlines simply declare, “ADOR wins again in the second trial.” 📍If the party that had 4 billion won recognized in the first trial was awarded only 1 billion won in total on appeal, shouldn’t that difference be explained first? Please don’t let the word “win” obscure the substance of the ruling.