1. The Defendant’s KRW 23,180,520 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from December 30, 2015 to October 6, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 8, 2015, at around 10:00, the Defendant killed the Deceased by making the part of the victim D (the knife, 57 years old, hereinafter “the deceased”) one time of the industrial knife knife, which was prepared in advance in the first floor B underground of Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, the left part of which is about 15cm well-known.

B. On November 20, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to 30 years of imprisonment by this court (2015Gohap73), the appeal filed by the Defendant and the Prosecutor at Seoul High Court on May 17, 2016 was dismissed (2015No3273), and the Defendant’s appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court on July 29, 2016 (2016Do7885).

C. E filed an application for a crime victim relief fund with the Plaintiff as a bereaved family member of the deceased, who falls under Article 18(1)3 of the Crime Victim Protection Act, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 23,180,520 to E on December 30, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the above facts, in light of the deceased’s age, gender, method of murder, circumstances after the crime, etc., the Defendant is obligated to compensate for the deceased’s damage caused by murder. In light of other circumstances such as the deceased’s age, gender, method of murder and circumstances after the crime, etc., it is sufficiently confirmed that the amount of damages to be compensated by the Defendant exceeds KRW 23,180,520 of the bereaved family relief fund. The Plaintiff is subrogated to the Defendant of the deceased who inherited to the extent of the bereaved family relief fund paid as above pursuant to Article 21(2) of the Crime Victim Protection Act

Unless there are special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 23,180,520 won as indemnity and delay damages.

B. It is unreasonable to determine the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant calculated the bereaved family relief fund and applied the unit wage of the ordinary worker to the deceased who had no occupation.