2016 Ghana 206627 Damage

A person shall be appointed.

Attorney Lee Jae-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Kim Yoon-hee

A person shall be appointed.

Attorney Lee Jae-in, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

November 15, 2016

November 29, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 28,700,000 won with 5% interest per annum from June 27, 2015 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 19, 2014, the Plaintiff was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for up to two weeks for the first time after the Defendant was driven by the Defendant on the 31st Dok-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho (hereinafter referred to as the “victim”) of the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter referred to as “the instant accident”) and for two weeks for the second time after the Defendant was injured by the Defendant while the Plaintiff was driving a motor vehicle on February 11, 2013 at Singu-dong 570-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho (hereinafter referred to as “the instant accident”). The Plaintiff was sentenced to suspended execution for up to 30 years and 16 years (hereinafter referred to as “the instant traffic accident”).

B. Accordingly, the judgment of the first instance is reversed on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed to have proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, and the judgment of the court below is acquitted on the part of the plaintiff, and that the prosecutor appealeds the plaintiff not guilty, in light of the following: (a) the process and method of the defendant's land designation of the plaintiff as the offender on April 15, 2015 as the defendant; (b) the details of the defendant's statement; and (c) the condition of the plaintiff's vehicle after the accident.

Although 2015do6515) was sentenced to dismissal of appeal on June 24, 2015, the above judgment became final and conclusive.

【Uncontentious facts, Gap’s evidence 3-1 to 3-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff: (a) details and process of the Defendant’s landing the Plaintiff as a driver of the instant accident;

In light of the above, although the defendant was aware or could have known that the plaintiff is not the driver of the above vehicle, he was present as a witness of investigation agency and criminal trial, and caused the plaintiff to be convicted in the first instance trial by making a false statement and perjury, and thus, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the consolation money of 28,700,000,000 won for mental damage suffered by the plaintiff in the course of the criminal trial, etc., as well as for the amount of consolation money of 18,70,000,000 won for mental damage suffered by the plaintiff, and damages for delay.

B. Determination

1) In filing a complaint, accusation, etc., if the complainant knew that there was no criminal charge or did not know of it with negligence, the complainants, etc. are liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the defendant, etc. due to such complaint, accusation, etc. In this case, on the ground that the judgment of innocence became final and conclusive on the part of the person prosecuted by the complaint, accusation, etc., the criminal judgment of innocence cannot be readily readily concluded that the complainant had intention or negligence on the part of the complainants, etc., and the determination of the intention or negligence of the complainants, etc. shall be made by taking into account all the evidence and circumstances shown in the records according to the good manager’s care (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da45897, May 10, 196, etc.).

2) According to the statements in Gap evidence No. 1-6, Gap evidence No. 1-2-1-3, and Gap evidence No. 5, it can be acknowledged that the defendant did not make a proper statement on the time of occurrence of the accident of this case, the uniforms of the driver of the harming vehicle, etc. after the accident of this case, and the defendant did not make a proper statement on the plaintiff's appearance, the plaintiff's photograph was confirmed, the plaintiff's photograph was reversed, and the plaintiff clearly stated to the effect that the plaintiff is the same as the driver of the harming vehicle.

B) Meanwhile, in light of the following: (a) comprehensively considering the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is insufficient to deem that the Defendant knew that the Plaintiff was not a driver of a harming vehicle, or that the Plaintiff was a driver of a harming vehicle due to the violation or negligence of the duty of care; and (b) there is no other evidence to acknowledge the remainder of the argument by the Plaintiff, without any need to examine the remainder of the argument.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jin-ju