1. The Defendant’s KRW 90,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual interest from August 18, 2010 to February 6, 2015, and the following.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 2002, the Defendant became aware of the Plaintiff who had been engaged in the judicial examination division through the Internet hosting site C, and from March 2003, the Defendant sent from Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, to the Plaintiff as a person of annual affairs, such as conducting the judicial examination division with the Plaintiff. However, on November 6, 2003, the Plaintiff said that “I wish to concentrate on the secondary preparation for the judicial examination,” the Defendant said that “I do so.”

Around February 19, 2004, the defendant prepared a copy of the complaint stating that "the plaintiff, on October 26, 2003, at the house of the complainant in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, was raped by the defendant with F for the purpose of having the plaintiff be subject to criminal punishment." On February 20, 2004, the defendant submitted a copy of the complaint stating that "the plaintiff, at around 03:00 on October 26, 2003, at the house of the complainant in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the complainant was raped once on one occasion after finding the complainant's house and continuing assault or intimidation, and submitted the complaint to the police officer who could not know his name at the public service center of the Kuak Police Station in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City on February 20, 2004."

B. The case of rape, etc. that the defendant filed against the plaintiff was prosecuted by the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office on October 29, 2004, and the defendant appealed against the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office on December 18, 2004.

In the case of the original disposition decision at the time and the appeal case filed by the defendant, the main issue was whether the defendant and the plaintiff were the relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff and the plaintiff, or whether the plaintiff was the one of the defendant's unilaterally, and therefore, it was expected that whether the defendant and the plaintiff had been engaged in Hong Kong travel as a chain of interest in the future.

C. From November 2004 to December 2, 2004, the Defendant was in English with a view to exercising the authority to prove that the Defendant went back from Hong Kong to Makao in order to avoid the Plaintiff, and became in English with a tensiond method.