A. In full view of the facts without dispute over recognition, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2- the overall purport of the arguments and arguments, the defendant was convicted of the crime of forging private documents, uttering of investigation documents, fraudulent entry into public electronic records, etc., and the crime of uttering of false entry into public electronic records, etc., and sentenced to a fine of KRW 2,00,000 on February 6, 2013, and was appealed, but appealed in the above judgment, but was sentenced to the appellate court's dismissal on March 18, 2014, and appealed District Court Decision 2013No667, March 18, 2014. However, the defendant appealed in the above judgment after being sentenced to a final appeal on June 12, 2014, Supreme Court Decision 2014Do4037, Jun. 12, 2014, which became final and conclusive.

B. 1) The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff suffered property damage or mental injury due to the Defendant’s instant tort, and thus, the Plaintiff shall be paid KRW 30,00,000 from the Defendant for compensation for damages. 2) The part of the claim for property damage was examined, and there is no evidence to acknowledge whether the Plaintiff suffered property damage due to the instant tort, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the amount of such damage. Accordingly, the claim for

3. According to the above facts of recognition of the claim for consolation money, since it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff suffered a static pain due to the defendant's illegal act in this case, it is reasonable to view consolation money to be KRW 5,00,000 as compensation to be paid by the defendant, considering all circumstances revealed in the arguments, such as the circumstances leading to the defendant's illegal act in this case, the form and method of such act

C. According to the theory of lawsuit, the Defendant, as a result of the tort in this case, raised an objection against the Plaintiff regarding the existence and scope of the Defendant’s obligation from October 8, 2014, which was the day following the delivery date of the complaint in this case filed by the Plaintiff as the date of the tort in this case.