2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

A. On December 8, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Jinwon District Prosecutors’ Office against the violation of the Medical Service Act against D, which is a doctor within the circulation period of the ordinary university hospital. On December 8, 2016, the Plaintiff visited the prosecutor’s office in charge and requested re-examination without prior promise from the prosecutor in charge to receive the phone that the case would be dismissed.

The prosecutor in charge stated that the plaintiff should return to the effect that the investigation is completed, and that the prosecutor in charge requested the plaintiff to leave the prosecutor's office again, but the plaintiff refused to leave the office, the defendant B and the police assigned for special guard who are the prosecutor's office were attached to the plaintiff and presented it out of the prosecutor's office and the office building of the Jinju.

B. On December 9, 2016, the Plaintiff visited Jinju District Office again, received a written appeal against the rejection disposition of the instant complaint case, and demanded Defendant C to undergo an inspection in charge. However, Defendant C cannot be a prosecutor in charge unless the prior promise is made, and the Plaintiff was prevented.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. On December 8, 2016, the Defendants asserted by the Plaintiff attached the Plaintiff, and forced the Plaintiff to be out of the inspection room and the Jinju Office’s office building. Defendant C had the Plaintiff, who visited the Jinju Office’s office building again on December 9, 2016, pushed the Plaintiff over, and suffered injuries in the process.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff’s medical expenses and consolation money for physical and mental damage incurred by the aforementioned strong eviction-out measure.

B. As seen earlier, it is recognized that the Defendants were forced to leave the inspection room by attaching the Plaintiff on December 8, 2016, and Defendant C prevented the Plaintiff from visiting the inspection room on December 9, 2016.

However, the plaintiff submitted.