A. The Plaintiffs are legally married couple who completed the marriage report on November 15, 2010, and have 1 South and 1 son’s children (the two children seems to have not attended until the closure of the pleadings in this case). The Defendant is an appointed employee of the bank located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D’s working for the Plaintiff A.

B. From May 10, 2016, from around 18:00 on May 10, 2016, the Defendant met with the same workplace bonus and the same workplace bonus and the same workplace bonus at the workplace’s home. Plaintiff A and the Defendant met with the above 30 minutes later. The participants, including Plaintiff A and the Defendant, were mixed with the workplace bonus and the beer, and most of the participants, except for some number of persons, were mixed with the workplace bonus and the beer, were combined with the neighboring singing at the second meeting between 20:30 to 21:00 on the same day.

C. After the second meeting, the Plaintiff and the Defendant were accommodated in a nearby hotel around 00:20 on May 11, 2016, and the Defendant, despite being aware that the Defendant had a legal spouse, had sexual intercourses with the Plaintiff A while becoming aware that the Defendant had a legal spouse, and the Plaintiff A had a telephone conversation with the Plaintiff B during which he had had a legal spouse, left the said hotel at around 04:39 on the same day.

Meanwhile, on May 11, 2016, Plaintiff A asserted that “the Defendant had been drunk and sexual intercourse with himself in the condition of mental disorder” and filed a complaint with the Defendant as quasi-rape. On September 19, 2016, the prosecution dismissed Plaintiff A’s prosecutor’s appeal against the lack of evidence on the ground that “In light of the statements made by the relevant persons, telephone details, CCTV images, etc., the Plaintiff and the Defendant appear to have sexual intercourse, but there was no evidence to prove that Plaintiff A was in the state of mental disorder or non-satisfy, or that the Defendant had sexual intercourse with the Plaintiff by recognizing that the Plaintiff was in the state of mental disorder or non-satisfy, or that there was no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff had sexual intercourse with the Plaintiff by taking advantage of the Plaintiff’s status.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 4, 7, 8, 14 through 18, Eul evidence 1, 2, 12.