[손해배상(기)][공1997.10.15.(44),2994]
[1] The case holding that a tort by false petition is established
[2] Whether a complainant's act constitutes a tort solely on the ground that the defendant's complainant was rendered a final and conclusive verdict of innocence (negative)
[1] The case holding that in a case where the complainants, under mutual explicit or implied agreement, provided the proviso of investigation by submitting a false statement to the investigative agency for criminal punishment or for the sole purpose of suffering, if they actively make a false statement, such as the content of the petition, and submit evidentiary materials that seem to correspond to the investigation by the investigative agency, and thereby are detained and prosecuted, the complainants are liable for damages caused by a tort
[2] The defendant's act does not constitute a tort solely on the ground that the defendant's complainant was rendered a final and conclusive verdict of innocence.
[1] Articles 750 and 751 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 750 of the Civil Act
[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 95Da45897 delivered on May 10, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 1810) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 62Da682 delivered on December 6, 1962 (No. 10-4, 293) Supreme Court Decision 81Da1030 delivered on December 13, 1983 (Gong1984, 157), Supreme Court Decision 93Da39072 delivered on May 10, 1994 (Gong194, 1647) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 63Da239 delivered on July 11, 196 (No. 11-2, No. 11-2, 500), Supreme Court Decision 9Da53949 delivered on December 25, 194 (No. 1985Da19645, May 295)
Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Park Jong-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Defendant 1 and one other (Attorney Park Jae-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Daejeon High Court Decision 94Na987 delivered on April 6, 1995
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
The defendants' attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the defendant 1 and the non-party 1 were convicted of 00 won for the above 0-year defendant 1's charges on the grounds that the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 were not guilty for 0-year defendant 1's charges of larceny and 0-year defendant 1's charges on the 0-year defendant 1's charges on the 0-year defendant 1's charges, and the above 0-year defendant 1's charges on the 0-year defendant 1's charges on the 0-year defendant 1's charges on the 0-year defendant 1's charges on the 0-year defendant 1's charges and 0-year charges on the 0-year defendant 1's charges on the 0-year defendant 1's charges, and the above 0-year charges on the 0-year defendant 2's charges on the 0-year defendant 1's charges on the 0-year defendant 1's charges on the 1's charges.
In light of the records, the above recognition and judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence as in the theory of lawsuit, or by misunderstanding the legal principles as to illegal acts in violation of the precedents of party members pointing out in the theory of lawsuit. The court below is clear that the court below's act of the defendants does not constitute a tort just because it is not determined that the act of the defendants is not a tort, and therefore, it cannot be accepted to criticize the judgment of the court below under other opinions
Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)