1. The Defendant’s KRW 20,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from June 4, 2017 to August 23, 2019 to the Plaintiff.

1. The description of the grounds for the claim shall be as specified in the attached Form;

2. Article 208(3)2 and Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act of the applicable provisions of the Acts [Judgment of confession, the defendant shall submit the title “documents for dispute settlement” to the court in writing, and only assert that criminal agreement was paid, and did not dispute all the causes for the plaintiff’s claim];

3. Even if a part of dismissal is declared by a judgment that made a confession, the amount of consolation money shall be determined by taking into account all the circumstances revealed in the records. The amount of consolation money due to the tort of this case shall be determined by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the form and content of the tort of this case, the Plaintiff’s age and family environment at the time of the tort of this case, the Plaintiff’s age and family environment, the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant starting from the private relationship, and the mental shock that the Plaintiff sustained due to the tort of this case,

However, the defendant asserts to the effect that the plaintiff paid 40 million won to the plaintiff as agreed amount in the criminal procedure as to the above illegal act does not dispute between the parties, and the defendant must deduct it from consolation money. The above fact is reasonable to deem that the amount was paid as part of the compensation for damages (property damage) unless there are circumstances such as clearly stating that the amount paid at the time of agreement is specially paid as consolation money in the course of the investigation as to the perpetrator of the illegal act or in the criminal trial where the victim agreed that he would not be punished for the perpetrator, in the course of the criminal investigation as to the perpetrator of the illegal act, or in the course of the criminal trial, the victim received the money in the name of the agreement from the perpetrator and made an agreement that he would not be punished for the perpetrator (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da46894, Feb. 23, 2001). However, there is no evidence to support that the plaintiff suffered property damage to the extent equivalent to the above agreement