beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 30,51,500 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from December 16, 2016 to November 4, 2020.
Reasons
Basic Facts
around 06:15 on December 16, 2016, the Defendant raped the Plaintiff, under the influence of alcohol, that the Defendant had been a principal guest in the “Del” E room located in Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City as an employee.
(hereinafter “instant crime”). The Defendant was indicted for the instant crime, and was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months by the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016Da1374 Decided March 10, 2017, and the said judgment became final and conclusive as it was, following the judgment dismissing the appeal.
[Ground of recognition] Fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap evidence No. 1, and determination of damages liability for the cause of a claim as a whole, the crime of this case constitutes tort against the plaintiff, and the defendant is liable to compensate for damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the crime of this case.
Medical expenses within the scope of liability for damages: According to each statement and the whole purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 2 (including a Serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and 51,500 won, the plaintiff can recognize the fact that the plaintiff paid 551,50 won in total due to the instant crime, etc., and there is no counter-proof.
The consolation money: The plaintiff's age and degree of negligence of KRW 30,00,000, the background and result of the crime of this case, the degree of damage caused thereby, and all other circumstances revealed in the arguments of this case: non-recognized plaintiff argued that the defendant suffered loss of lost profit of KRW 39,846,00 due to stress caused by the crime of this case was unable to engage in normal social activities since 2017, but there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the above facts solely with the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 3 and 4, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
Therefore, the defendant's lawsuit is reasonable to dispute the scope of the obligation of the defendant from December 16, 2016, with respect to the damages for the above recognition amounting to KRW 30,551,500 (= KRW 551,500,000), as well as the scope of the obligation of the plaintiff.