1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. A. On September 1, 2015, the Plaintiff of tort due to insult and assault attempted to temporarily stop on the road in front of the Ddong in Yongsan-gu Seoul, Yongsan-gu, Seoul. The Defendant, a commercial security guard, carried out a fluor and bath while putting the said commercial security guard, and used a heavy fluoring machine in the car, and assault the Plaintiff’s arms.

B. Around 14:00 on April 5, 2016, the Defendant was present at the Seoul Western District Court as a witness of the case of assault, etc. against the Plaintiff at the said court 2016 High Court and taken an oath, and the Defendant issued perjury that there was no fact even though the Defendant first assaulted and insulting the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff suffered economic and mental damages due to the Defendant’s insult, assault and perjury, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for KRW 20,000,000 and damages for delay.

2. Determination

A. The evidence presented by the Plaintiff regarding insult and assault alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant was insulting or assaulting the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

The plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

B. In determining perjury, whether a witness’s testimony constitutes a false statement contrary to memory is not a mere part of the testimony, but a whole of the testimony during the relevant interrogation process should be identified and judged by fully understanding the whole of the testimony. If the entire purport of testimony is consistent with objective facts and it is extremely minor if it is not a statement contrary to memory, it is inconsistent with memory as to the extremely minor part of the testimony.

Even if it is deemed that it is a statement due to the sunset or mistake of the purpose of the examination, perjury cannot be established.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Do425, Sept. 28, 1993). We examine the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff. The Defendant’s testimony in a criminal case against the Plaintiff is against memory.