beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff's assertion as to the cause of claim
A. The defendant, on June 18, 2005, will arrange D Co., Ltd., a corporation and a service owner, if the plaintiff does not know the amount of KRW 100 million.
''intimidating the niversity of the Defendant, who received 80 million won from the drinking Defendant twice more than twice, and thus, the punishment is different.
"A false complaint against the plaintiff was submitted to the Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office."
B. The Plaintiff was indicted on the charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) due to the Defendant’s accusation, and was acquitted on July 8, 2009 (Seoul High Court Decision 2009No38, Jul. 8, 2009), and the Prosecutor appealed, but the appeal was dismissed.
C. However, the Plaintiff was bound by the foregoing case from January 8, 2009 to March 31, 2009, and the Korea Electric Power Corporation, currently in office, was released from its position on the grounds of criminal prosecution from April 1, 2009 to March 31, 2010, and thus was not paid a total of KRW 6,980,000.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the damages amounting to KRW 70,980,00 (i.e., the lost income amounting to KRW 60,980,000) and the damages for delay.
2. In filing a complaint, accusation, etc., if the complainant knew or did not know of the existence of a crime against the accused, etc. due to the accusation, accusation, etc., the complainant, etc. is liable to compensate the damages suffered by the accused, etc. due to the accusation, accusation, etc., but the criminal judgment of innocence becomes final and conclusive on the ground that the judgment of innocence was not guilty, it cannot be readily concluded that the complainant, etc. was intentional or negligent, and the determination of whether the complainant, etc. was intentional or negligent should be made based on the principle of good manager in light of all the evidence and circumstances recorded
(See Supreme Court Decision 95Da45897 delivered on May 10, 1996, etc.). As to the instant case.