2. C:

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

(a) Relationship between the Parties;

The plaintiff is a person who was employed on November 5, 2014 in defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant Co., Ltd.") as a student in 194, and defendant B is a director of the defendant Co., Ltd. as the plaintiff's commercial person in 1972.

B. Defendant B’s tort

Defendant B, after completing his service with the Plaintiff on October 30, 2015, participated in the entire meeting of the Defendant Company at the Defendant Company level. In that place, the Plaintiff did not refuse the Plaintiff’s drinking with the authority of Defendant B, etc. and did not take the body of the Plaintiff, thereby bringing the Plaintiff into his house. In addition, Defendant B committed the following illegal acts (hereinafter “instant illegal acts”).

1) Quasi-Indecent act

Defendant B, at around 23:00 on October 30, 2015, set up near the road located in Manyang-gu, Manyang-gu, Manyang-si, 79, 105-ro 105, was indecently committed by Defendant B by taking advantage of the Plaintiff’s mental disorder or the Plaintiff’s inability to resist his body under the influence of alcohol.

(ii) quasi-rape

Defendant B committed an indecent act against the Plaintiff on October 31, 2015, 01:00, as indicated in paragraph (1) of the same Article, and, under the influence of alcohol, the Plaintiff, who was unable to hold his body, took the Plaintiff’s body back to the mutual influence with the mutual influence in the territory of the mouth, and went off the Plaintiff’s clothes, and sexual intercourse by taking advantage of the Plaintiff’s mental disorder or the state of failing to resist.

(c) Progress thereafter;

1) The Plaintiff did not have to work together with Defendant B and retired the Defendant Company around December 2016.

2) Meanwhile, Defendant B was indicted by quasi-rape 2017 Gohap122, and was sentenced to a four-year sentence, and thereafter, Defendant B paid KRW 120 million to the Plaintiff, and the criminal agreement was concluded after which Defendant B was sentenced to a three-year suspended sentence in the Seoul High Court (Seoul High Court 2018No11), which was sentenced to a two-year suspended sentence (Seoul High Court 2018No11). The said judgment became final and conclusive on April 6, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-5 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

1) Claim against Defendant B

According to the above facts, Defendant B is obligated to pay consolation money for mental suffering suffered by the Plaintiff due to the tort of this case.

2) Claim against the Defendant Company

The phrase "business execution", which is an element for an employer's liability under Article 756 of the Civil Act, means that an employee's unlawful act is objectively deemed to be an act related to the employee's business activity, performance of business, or performance of business without considering the actor's subjective circumstances. If an employee committed a harmful act to another person by intent, the employee's act is not itself one's own, but it is in close vicinity to the employer's business time and place, and if the employee's whole or part of business, or the motive for harmful act is related to business performance, it shall be deemed that it is objectively related to the employee's performance of business. In this case, whether the employer has caused danger and lack of preventive measures may be additionally considered for the fair burden of damages. Meanwhile, if the employee committed an intentional harmful act, such as sexual harassment or sexual intercourse, not only the employee's performance of business, but also the employee's act constitutes an employer's act of sexual humiliation or aversion, but also an employer's act of employment, which is objectively acknowledged as being related to the employee's performance of business affairs.

As to the instant case, Defendant B was in a position to be involved in the Plaintiff’s promotion and service rating as the Plaintiff’s workplace company, and the tort of this case is an old-age social old-age who had been employed by the Plaintiff and Defendant B after the Plaintiff and Defendant B’s completion of their service and became in a position to be in a position to be involved in the Plaintiff’s promotion and service rating, and the tort of this case occurred after the Defendant B et al. did not refuse an alcoholic beverage with the rights of the Plaintiff in the form of the Defendant company, and became in a situation of personnel in which the Defendant B et al. performed his duties, and there is time and place close relation between the tort of this case and the Defendant company’s office performance. Thus, the Defendant Company is

(b) Scope of damages;

In full view of the circumstances revealed in the arguments of this case, including the relationship between the Plaintiff and Defendant B, the age of the Plaintiff and Defendant B, the place and situation where the tort of this case was committed, the circumstances after the tort of this case, and the criminal agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant B, etc., it is reasonable to determine consolation money for the Plaintiff as KRW 50 million.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 50 million won and the damages for delay calculated at each rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from October 31, 2015, which is the date of the instant final tort to April 19, 2018, and 15% 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.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified within the scope of the above recognition and partly accepted.