1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant lent KRW 18 million to the Plaintiff around August 16, 2011, but the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Plaintiff on charges of fraud around May 201, 201, stating that the Plaintiff did not pay interest KRW 20 million in total, and that the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Plaintiff on charges of fraud.

(2) On October 12, 2012, the lower court found that the Plaintiff was guilty of having not repaid the borrowed money, on the ground that the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the Plaintiff had not repaid the borrowed money, and that the Plaintiff did not have any intent or ability to repay the borrowed money (Evidence Settlement).

At this time, the defendant's suspicion was not recognized.

B. Around July 2013, the Defendant was accused of false accusation, interference with business, defamation, etc. by the Plaintiff, but was subject to disposition on December 30, 2013.

At this time, the plaintiff's suspicion was not recognized.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, 2, 17, 18, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As the cause of the instant claim, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant’s tort that the Defendant filed a false accusation against the Plaintiff, and the Defendant’s reputation and credit were damaged, and that the Defendant should compensate for damages for the Plaintiff’s emotional distress, and sought compensation for damages against the Defendant, including KRW 30 million and damages for delay.

In light of the above-mentioned circumstances, even if the defendant was subject to an investigation due to the suspected fact that the complainant filed a complaint and was subject to an investigation, unless the complaint was based on intentional or gross negligence to the extent that it can be recognized as abuse of right (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da46360, Apr. 12, 2007), the complainant's act cannot be readily concluded as tort (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da46360, Apr. 12, 2007). In light of the circumstances where the defendant was unable to receive a loan from the plaintiff, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient.