2017 Ghana 51162 damages (as such)

A

B

December 19, 2017

January 16, 2018

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 7 million won with 5% interest per annum from May 1, 2014 to January 16, 2018, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 4/5 shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 50 million won with 5% interest per annum from May 1, 2014 to the service 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. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the spouse of the deceased C (the deceased on August 13, 2013, hereinafter “the deceased”). The Defendant resided in the adjoining areas of the Plaintiff and the Deceased and was aware of the Plaintiff and the Deceased.

B. After the death of the deceased, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant that caused indecent act by force against the Defendant. On April 21, 2016 and August 21, 2013, the Defendant committed an indecent act by force against the Plaintiff’s chest at the Plaintiff’s residence; ② on April 12, 2014, the Plaintiff’s indecent act by force was committed on the part of the Plaintiff’s plastic house prior to the Plaintiff’s residence due to the Plaintiff’s her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her and her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her, and the Defendant her her her her her her her her her.

C. On November 11, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to a two-year suspended sentence (this Court Decision 2016No. 249) for six months of imprisonment due to indecent act by force on the charges of indecent act by force. The above judgment became final and conclusive.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

1) The Defendant: (a) around September 2012, around the Plaintiff’s residence, tried to rhym the Plaintiff’s her son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s her son’s son’s son’s son’

2) Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the solatium amounting to KRW 50 million due to the above unlawful act.

B. Summary of the defendant's assertion

1) Among the indecent acts by force asserted by the Plaintiff, there is no evidence to acknowledge the above acts, and the pertinent criminal judgment became final and conclusive regarding the acts described in the above (4) and (5), but the Defendant only performed the horses and actions to the effect that the Plaintiff was sent only once his chest to the Plaintiff, and there was no fact that the Plaintiff’s chest was sent to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s statement was not consistent, and it was not reliable since it was made more specific time after the lapse of time. In addition, there was no fact that the Defendant or the Defendant’s wife Nonparty filed a suit to the effect that the relationship between

2) In addition, even if the above acts constituted a tort, the extinctive prescription has expired, and since the plaintiff lives together with usuals even after the above criminal case, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff suffered mental suffering.

3. Determination

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant committed indecent acts by compulsion as stated in the above 2. A. (1) through (3), but it is not sufficient to acknowledge this only by the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. In addition, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant had damaged the Plaintiff’s reputation by providing a written answer as if the Plaintiff had any relationship between the Plaintiff and D, but it is insufficient to acknowledge this only by the statement of the evidence No. 14, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

B. It shall not be rejected unless there are special circumstances where it is deemed difficult to adopt a factual determination of a criminal judgment in light of other evidence submitted in a civil trial, since the facts acknowledged in the judgment of the relevant criminal case that has already been convicted are not confined to the facts established in a civil trial, even though they are not confined to the facts established in the civil trial (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da354, Jan. 29, 191). (4), and (5) The defendant is convicted of a crime of indecent act by force on the same facts as the above 2-A-4, and (5) The facts alleged by the defendant are examined above, and the circumstances asserted by the defendant are insufficient to reject the facts established in the final criminal judgment solely on the grounds of such circumstances as the impeachment of the plaintiff's statement presented as evidence

C. Meanwhile, the fact that the plaintiff suffered mental pain due to the act as described in the above 2-A-4, 5) of the defendant's above 2-1, can be sufficiently acknowledged in light of the empirical rule. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the tort. In full view of all circumstances, including the relation between the plaintiff and the defendant, the plaintiff's age, and the degree of the defendant's indecent act by force, it is reasonable to determine consolation money to be paid to the plaintiff by the defendant as 3.

D. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of KRW 7 million and 15% per annum under the Civil Act from May 1, 2014 that the Plaintiff sought after the date of tort to the extent of the existence and scope of the Defendant’s performance obligation. From January 16, 2018, the date of the judgment of this case, which is the date of adjudication of this case, to January 16, 2018, and the date of full payment from the following day to the date of full payment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Park Jae-hoon