2. All of the plaintiffs' remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

3. 1/2 of the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants, and the remainder 1/2 are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Payment of 20% interest per annum from September 1, 2003 to the date of full payment with respect to each amount.

(n)

A. Plaintiff 1 was Plaintiff 2 and 3’s offspring, and around October 2003, the second grade students of middle school. Defendant 1 was Defendant 2 and 3’s children, Defendant 4, Defendant 5 and 6’s children, and Defendant 7’s children as Defendant 8 and 9’s children. < Amended by Act No. 6810, Oct. 2, 2003>

10. He was a first-year student at a high school.

B. (1) On October 203, Defendant 1 and 4 combined with Defendant 1 and 20: around October 203, Defendant 1 and 4 reported the name of the Plaintiff 1 and 1 and 10 children, including the Plaintiff 1 and her-friendly Kim ○○, who had been raped with the above 4th apartment box, to the above 10th of the above 1st of the first of the first of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the fourth of the second of the fourth of the second of the fourth of the fourth of the fourth of the second of the second of the fourth of the second of the second of the second of the second of the fourth of the following.

(3) In addition, Defendant 7 raped Plaintiff 1, etc. on the two main apartment rooftop as above on the date and time set forth in the above paragraph (2) above, and moved Plaintiff 1 to a modern second apartment complex located in the same Dong with Plaintiff 1, and was sitting in the said apartment playground, Defendant 7 followed Plaintiff 1, who was in the condition of being satisfed, and was in the position of being satisfed with the entrance of the above apartment rooftop, and was in the position of being satisfed and cannot resist against it.

C. The Plaintiff 1 complained of serious emotional pain, such as post trauma stress disorder (Hst - trainic Stress Dois), depression, anxiety, anti-human challenge, suicide crisis, etc.

D. Defendants 1, 4, and 7 were indicted by the Seoul Central District Court 2006Da1113 as the facts charged as described in the above sub-paragraph (b) and sentenced Defendant 1 to imprisonment for a maximum of three years and two years and seven months, and Defendant 4 and 7 were sentenced to imprisonment for a short of two years and one year and six months, respectively. The Seoul High Court appealed as the Seoul High Court 2006Do1511, and Defendant 1 was sentenced to imprisonment for a short of one year and six months, and Defendant 4 and 7 were sentenced to imprisonment for a period of one year and six months and six months, respectively. The Defendants deposited KRW 30,00,000 as the Seoul Central District Court No. 10411, Jul. 13, 2006, which was in the process of the above criminal case.

【Grounds for Recognition】 Each entry of Gap 1 through 14, Eul 131 evidence (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

[Supplementary Evidence] 1 to 130 Evidence, Eul 132 Evidence (including each number), 2. Sheet

A. Determination as to the cause of the claim for damages (1)

According to the above facts, the plaintiff 1 suffered from mental suffering due to the above series of rapes by the defendant 1, 4, and 7. Thus, the above rapes by the defendant 1, 4, and 7 shall constitute joint tort against the plaintiff 1. The defendant 2, 3, who is the parent of the plaintiff 1, shall be deemed to constitute joint tort against the plaintiff 1. The defendant 1's joint torts by the defendant 1, 4, and 7 shall be confirmed to be suffering from mental suffering.

Therefore, Defendant 1, 4, and 7, as joint tortfeasor, has a duty to pay full compensation for mental damage suffered by the plaintiffs as joint tortfeasor.

In addition, Defendants 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 9 are parents of Defendants 1, 4, and 7, and are negligent in neglecting their duty of care to protect and supervise the joint tort of this case even though they had a duty of care to prevent minors from engaging in such joint tort. The negligence of such protection and supervision is one of the causes of the joint tort of this case. Thus, Defendant 1, 4, and 7 and the plaintiffs are jointly and severally liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs.

(2) Determination as to the defendants' assertion

The Defendants asserted to the effect that Defendant 1, 4, and 7’s act of assaulting Plaintiff 1’s life was not rape by force, but was raped by Plaintiff 1, who was in a state of mental disorder due to drunk drinking, and thus, it cannot be deemed that Plaintiff 1 caused an external stress disorder. The Defendants asserted to the effect that there was no causal link between Defendant 1, 4, and 7’s tort and Plaintiff 1’s damage, since they were sexual assault and assaulted for a long time from ○○○○.

However, even if Defendant 1, 4, and 7 committed a sexual act against Plaintiff 1’s will at the time of rape, so long as Defendant 1 committed a sexual act against Plaintiff 1, it is reasonable to deem that Plaintiff 1 had a physical and mental impulse that may cause stress disorder. ② In full view of the circumstances revealed in the entire arguments of this case, it can be seen that Plaintiff 1 suffered physical, emotional, and sexual abuse from Defendant 1’s U.S. ○○ for two years after the rape of Defendant 1, 4, and 7 as well as that caused the above mental disability. However, insofar as it is obvious that Plaintiff 1 suffered emotional distress due to the rape of Defendant 1, 4, and 7, it cannot be viewed that Plaintiff 1 suffered emotional distress, regardless of the circumstances that can be considered in determining the amount of consolation money for the Plaintiffs, Defendant 1, 4, and 17 suffered emotional distress.

Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendants is without merit.

B. Scope of liability for damages

Furthermore, with respect to consolation money, the Minister of Health and Welfare, Defendant 1, and Defendant 4 had the mind to rape Plaintiff 1 and had the Plaintiff 1 drunk, and Defendant 7 committed rape in this case using the above mental condition of Plaintiff 1, Defendant 1 had raped Plaintiff 1 twice, Defendant 1 had her raped with Plaintiff 1, and Plaintiff 1 had her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendants jointly and severally seek to the plaintiff 1 as the plaintiffs 40,000,000 won, and the plaintiff 2, and 3 as to each of the above amounts of KRW 5,00,000,000 and each of the above amounts after the date of the joint tort of this case. < Amended by Act No. 6630, Mar.

11. 1. From January 1, it is recognized that it is reasonable for the Defendants to resist the existence and scope of the obligation.

The plaintiffs are obligated to pay 5% per annum under the Civil Act until January 10, 2007, which is the date of the judgment of this case, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and each remaining claim against the defendants is dismissed as there is no justifiable reason.

Judges Lee Young-young

Judges Choi Ho-young