A. On November 17, 2013, at around 02:30, the Defendant, along with the Plaintiff, who became aware of alcohol prior to the swimming day, forced the Plaintiff, who was drunk at around 06:00 on the same day, to attract the Plaintiff to the mutual influence of the trade name in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Nowon-gu, Seoul. However, at around 06:50 on the same day, the Plaintiff refused the Plaintiff’s refusal and went the Plaintiff to his residence, leading the Plaintiff to close the entrance, closing the entrance, and locking the entrance, following the Plaintiff’s following the Plaintiff’s back to close the entrance, and the Plaintiff was unable to resist the Plaintiff’s shoulder by hand, and rape the Plaintiff again, at around 07:0 on the same day, the Plaintiff’s shoulder, who said the Plaintiff would go to “I”.

B. The Defendant was prosecuted for committing rape due to the foregoing criminal facts, and was sentenced to three years of imprisonment for the first instance court (Seoul District Court Decision 2014Dahap276 Decided February 13, 2015), and the Defendant appealed and appealed respectively, but all of the appeals were dismissed.

(Seoul High Court Decision 2015No829 Decided September 18, 2015 (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do15296 Decided January 14, 2016). 2. The judgment of the defendant on this safety defense is confined to the Jung Eup prison, and thus, this court does not have jurisdiction over this case. However, according to Article 467 of the Civil Act, the performance of the obligation other than the specific delivery obligation must be at the present address or place of business of the creditor. According to Article 467 of the Civil Procedure Act, a lawsuit on property right can be brought to the court of the place where the obligation is performed. Thus, a lawsuit seeking monetary payment against the defendant can be brought to the court of the plaintiff's domicile. Since this court has jurisdiction over the domicile of the plaintiff, this court can have jurisdiction over the lawsuit of this case.

Therefore, the defendant's defense of the above principal safety is without merit.

3. According to the above findings of the judgment on the merits, the defendant suffered emotional distress by rapeing the plaintiff.