Plaintiff (Attorney Han-dong et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firm Echeon, Attorneys Yu Byung-ok et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

September 10, 2009

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 10 million won with 5% interest per annum from October 18, 2005 to October 8, 2009 and 20% interest per annum from October 9, 2009 to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, 80% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 80,000,000 won with 5% interest per annum from October 18, 2005 to the date of this decision and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 11, 2005, the Defendant carried the Plaintiff, who was mistakenly involved in the phone for the old day, with the intention to have a sexual intercourse with the Plaintiff by threatening the Plaintiff to have a sexual intercourse with the Plaintiff by salvizing the Plaintiff’s face by salvating the Plaintiff, while driving the Plaintiff’s face as the old day. From Jun. 11, 2006 to Jun. 14, 2006, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff the Plaintiff’s photograph with the face of the salvbbbing and the salbing of the arm’s length where the Plaintiff was entering the NA to meet the Plaintiff’s face. The Defendant sent the Plaintiff’s photograph and the Plaintiff’s family member without having followed the Plaintiff’s photograph and family member’s request.

B. At around 14:30 on June 15, 2005, the defendant, who took a photo at the 6th floor space "○○○○○○el" located in Goyang-gu, Goyang-gu (hereinafter omitted), and had the plaintiff promptly take the defendant's sexual organ and sexual intercourse with the defendant once, and raped the plaintiff four times in the same manner from that time to August 18 of the same year. At around 10:30 on June 24, 2005, the defendant intruded the plaintiff's house by the same method and invadedd the plaintiff's house six times in total from that time to July 25 of the same year, and had the plaintiff enter the plaintiff's house as soon as possible by force.

C. In addition, the defendant had tried to take money from the plaintiff in return for the discontinuance of rape, and had found the plaintiff's house to rape around 09:30 on July 25, 2005, and had the plaintiff "on the face of 300,000 won, a male who is marked with a photograph, would no longer be sexually imprisoned at the end of this sexual relationship," and had the plaintiff's home at around 10:30 on the same day from the plaintiff who was fright, and had the plaintiff's house at around 14:0 on August 14, 2005 at around 10:30 on the same day, and had the plaintiff's house at around 30,00 won by the same method at around 30:50 on October 18, 2005, and had the plaintiff's house at around 500,000 won.

D. The Defendant was convicted of imprisonment with prison labor for three years due to the crime committed in the first instance (Seoul High Court 2006No1107) and the violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection, etc. of Victims (or Violation of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Victims) on the grounds that it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s appeal (Seoul High Court 2006No1107) makes it impossible or considerably difficult to resist or make it difficult to resist the victim regarding rape and the part of indecent act by compulsion, or making it difficult to resist the victim’s resistance, or that it was acquitted on the grounds that there is no other evidence supporting the facts charged (the part on indecent act by compulsion).

E. As to this, the Defendant and the Prosecutor appealed (Supreme Court Decision 2006Do5979). The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the verdict of innocence to the purport that the Defendant was guilty, and the judgment of the first instance became final and conclusive by dismissing the Defendant’s appeal on April 19, 2007 (Seoul High Court Decision 2007No292).

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence 1, Gap 5-1, 2, Gap 7-1, and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, since it is clear in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff suffered severe mental pain due to rape, indecent act by compulsion, residential intrusion, and argument, as seen above, the defendant is obliged to pay consolation money for such mental pain to the plaintiff.

In light of the plaintiff's defense that the damage claim against the defendant was extinguished by prescription, the plaintiff filed a criminal complaint against the defendant against the defendant on December 5, 2005 with the non-party 4-8-13 as the defendant's wife before marriage (the non-party). On December 20, 2005, the defendant specified the defendant and filed a criminal complaint against the police for rape, etc. on the same day and the following day and the police's statement and the witness's statement with the defendant, the defendant's photograph were identical to the defendant's identity before marriage (the non-party 2 and the above photographed by the non-party 3). As such, the plaintiff's complaint against the non-party 4-8-13 can be acknowledged to have been withdrawn by prescription. Thus, the plaintiff's damage claim against the defendant was established by prescription against the non-party 2, and it should be proved that the defendant's damage claim against the non-party 3 as the defendant's perpetrator was proved by the court's judgment and the court's conviction against the defendant.

However, according to the evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the defendant's criminal complaint was filed by the plaintiff, and the defendant made a criminal complaint by the plaintiff on or before December 20, 2005, with the plaintiff as the principal deposit before the lapse of 3 years from the time of February 14, 2006, and again deposited 10,000,000 under the same name as the repayment of damages on August 17, 2006. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant approved the liability for damages to the plaintiff by depositing as the repayment of damages as above. As a result, the defendant's additional deposit was suspended on August 17, 2006 and the lawsuit of this case was filed before the expiration of 3 years from that date, the plaintiff's re-claim pointing this out has merit and the defendant's defense has no merit.

B. Furthermore, as to the amount of consolation money, the amount of consolation money shall be determined at KRW 10,000,000 in consideration of the Plaintiff’s suffering, age and marital life, background leading up to the damage, the degree of criminal punishment against the Defendant, the Defendant’s deposit for the repayment of damage as above, and all other circumstances shown in the argument of this case.

C. Therefore, from October 18, 2005 to October 8, 2009, which is the date of the final illegal act sought by the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay set forth in each annual rate of 5% as stipulated in the Civil Act and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from October 9, 2009 to the date of the final illegal act sought by the Plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges Kim Jong-san