Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

A. On May 2, 2018, the Defendant reported on May 2, 2018, 119 that “a single vehicle accident occurs in a farm road”.

B. On May 3, 2018, the Plaintiff was issued a 112 order following the joint response receipt by the Daegu Fire-Fighting Headquarters on the said 119 report as a police officer belonging to the Daegu Hasong Police Station C police box, and was dispatched to Daegu-gun D on May 3, 2018, and discovered the Defendant, and thereafter arrested the Defendant as a flagrant offender under suspicion of violating the Road Traffic Act (refluence of the direction measurement).

C. On May 4, 2018, the Defendant submitted an appeal to the Daegu Hasong Police Station’s Hearing room to the effect that “the Plaintiff illegally arrested the Defendant on the basis of his duty and subjective judgment, and infringed on human rights.” On June 4, 2018, the Plaintiff received “measures against the Defendant” on the ground that “the Plaintiff did not have any evidence to prove the Plaintiff’s misconduct, such as the Plaintiff’s infringement of human rights, when considering the pertinent data such asCCTV,” from the audit room of the said police station.

On June 19, 2018, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 5 million as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (Refusal of measurement) in the Daegu District Court Decision 2018 High Court Decision 201Da3385, which became final and conclusive on June 30, 2018.

E. The Defendant filed a complaint against the Plaintiff under suspicion of abuse of authority and arrest, but the Prosecutor of the Seo-gu District Prosecutors’ Office dismissed the said complaint on July 30, 2018.

F. On the other hand, around August 21, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the purport that “the Defendant received the appeal containing false facts for the purpose of having the Plaintiff subject to disciplinary action as an audit room at the police station hearing, and filed a complaint with the intent to have the Plaintiff subject to criminal punishment by false accusation as to the arrest of abuse of authority.” However, on November 5, 2018, the Plaintiff issued a non-prosecution disposition against the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant was suspected of being subject to criminal punishment, and the Plaintiff filed an application for adjudication, but dismissed on April 5, 2019.

(Grounds for recognition) The facts of absence of dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, 9, Eul's evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 9, 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim.