Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Byung-ju, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and 1 (Attorney Yoon Young-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

February 4, 2008

1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff 65,087,155 won and 5% interest per annum from May 15, 2006 to February 21, 2008 and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. The allegations and issues of the parties

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) A sexual indecent act or sexual intercourse by force;

① Defendant 1: (a) was the president of a child welfare facility, ○○○○○, and (b) forced the Plaintiff, an employee of ○○○○, to take the part of the Plaintiff’s sexual organ at the singing room around April 3, 2006, and forced the Plaintiff, who was an employee of ○○○, to put the Plaintiff into the Defendant’s sexual organ, and had the Plaintiff refuse to take the action, and (c) attempted to put the Plaintiff out of the Plaintiff’s will and panty, but did not reach this.

② On April 4, 2006, Defendant 1 demanded the Plaintiff to leave the work in the singing room, and caused the Plaintiff to leave the Plaintiff’s sexual organ into the Plaintiff again. By August 8, 2006, Defendant 1 demanded the Plaintiff to leave the Plaintiff’s sexual organ into the Plaintiff’s sexual organ at the morning or the P.M. room around the same month.

③ At around April 10, 2006, Defendant 1 forced the Plaintiff, who was frighten in the apartment of the Plaintiff’s lodging house, to do so, and attempted to get off and inserting the Plaintiff’s panty and panty.

④ At around 00:20 on April 29, 2006, Defendant 1 exceeded all the Plaintiff’s upper and lower parts of the apartment, which is an apartment of the Plaintiff’s lodging house, and made the Plaintiff have sexual intercourse by inserting his sexual organ into three and four parts in the Plaintiff’s sexual organ.

(2) Claim for damages arising from tort

Defendant 1, taking advantage of his position as the president, committed sexual harassment or sexual intercourse with the Plaintiff who is an employee by force, which constitutes a tort as to the Plaintiff’s sexual self-determination. Defendant 1 as an illegal person, and Defendant 2 as an illegal person, and Defendant 2 as an employer (hereinafter “Defendant corporation”) is jointly and severally liable for all damages suffered by the Plaintiff.

B. The defendants' assertion

(1) Defendant 1’s assertion

It was true that the Plaintiff and the Defendant had sexual intercourse and sexual intercourse with the Plaintiff at the time and place of the Plaintiff’s assertion. However, each of the above acts is naturally formed with the Plaintiff’s consent while developing the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant did not have sexual intercourse with the Plaintiff against the Plaintiff’s will. Thus, the Defendant cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim for damages.

(2) The defendant corporation's assertion

Defendant 1's illegal act is not recognized, and even if it is recognized, the problem of patriotism between male and female is not related to the execution of duties as the president, so it cannot be held liable as an employer.

C. Key issue of the instant case

The key issue of the instant case is, first, whether the circumstances at the time when Defendant 1 and the Plaintiff had sexual intercourse were left, which is the issue of how to believe whose statements are made by the Plaintiff and Defendant 1 among the results of each personal questioning conducted by the Plaintiff and Defendant 1. Second, if the circumstances at the time when Defendant 1 and the Plaintiff had sexual intercourse are contrary to the Plaintiff’s assertion, it constitutes “indecent act or sexual intercourse as a sexual force” as provided by Article 303(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 11(1) of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection, etc. of Victims Thereof (hereinafter “Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes”), and third, whether Defendant 1 bears the responsibility of employer in relation to Defendant 1’s act.

2. Determination on the credibility of the Plaintiff’s statement

On May 16, 2006, the Plaintiff submitted a written complaint to the police on May 16, 2006 and stated the victim’s first statement on the background of sexual indecent act at the police station’s first time and frequency at the time of sexual indecent act in the president room until the questioning of the Plaintiff himself from this court, and first Defendant 1 was unable to accurately memory the date of sexual indecent act in an apartment after the Plaintiff’s home entering the apartment house, but on April 3, 2006, the Defendant 1 was unable to accurately memory the date of sexual indecent act in the apartment. However, around 0:20 on April 29, 2006, the Plaintiff did not appear to have sexual indecent act and sexual intercourse with the Defendant 1’s speech and behavior at the time of 0:0,000, and the Defendant 1 did not have any specific sexual indecent act or sexual intercourse with the Defendant 2 at the time of 20,000, and it did not appear to have been sing and to have been sing.

On April 3, 2006, Defendant 1 and his agent freely met the Plaintiff’s order or time extension at a singing room. If Defendant 1 attempted to engage in sexual intercourse with the Plaintiff by force, the circumstances suggesting the credibility of the Plaintiff’s statement that: (a) the Plaintiff was forced by Defendant 1, who was his superior official, to escape or singing and talk with the Plaintiff; (b) however, the Plaintiff did not have sexual intercourse with the Defendant in the process of making a statement by the police that he did not have sexual experience; and (c) in light of the nature and level of knowledge related to the Plaintiff’s questioning at the police station, the Plaintiff could not be able to respond to any serious shock; and (d) there was no risk that the Plaintiff’s escape or appearance might not be any more disadvantaged by having the Plaintiff’s statement made in such circumstances.

As the completion of the contract, the circumstance that the door was directly opened with the apartment key or that the defendant had been scamed as the key had already been displayed, was that the plaintiff, who had been continuously sexually committed by the defendant 1 in the singing room and the room, was forced to be done because of the fear of the defendant 1. Therefore, it is not enough to impeachment the credibility of the plaintiff's statement.

Meanwhile, if Defendant 1 and his agent were forced to commit an indecent act by force from Defendant 1, around April 23, 2006, they did not see that, on the website of ○○○○○○○○○’s website, “I see that all fluents of the sun-dried sun-dried sun-dried sun-dried sun-dried blasts, ......., I do not see that I see that I would see that I would have an unfluent springing so that I would enjoy it, and that I would not see that I would like to see that I would have fluent e-mail that I would be able to see the Plaintiff’s e-mail, and that I would not see that I would like to say that I would like to unfluent fluent e-mail, and that I would not see the Plaintiff’s fluent e-mail that I would not see the Plaintiff’s fluent e-mail that I would not see it.

(2) On the other hand, Defendant 1: (a) tried to find out the fact that the Plaintiff had sexual intercourse with the Defendant 1 on April 3, 2006 at the time when he was investigated by the police; (b) tried to have sexual intercourse with the Defendant 1; and (c) reversed the Plaintiff’s statement on the ground that he had no sexual intercourse with the Defendant 2 with the Defendant 4, and that the Plaintiff had no personal sexual intercourse with the Defendant 6, and that the Plaintiff had no sexual intercourse with the Defendant 1 on June 3, 2006, and had no sexual intercourse with the Defendant 2, including the Plaintiff’s order, drinking, drinking, and drinking, and any other sexual intercourse with the Defendant 2, who had no sexual intercourse with the Defendant 6, and had no knowledge about sexual intercourse with the Defendant 1, who had no sexual intercourse with the Defendant 6, and thus had no sexual intercourse with the Defendant 2, who had no sexual intercourse with the Defendant 3, by means of an extended period of time.

(3) Nonparty 4 and Nonparty 5, who worked in the ○○○○○○○○, did not directly state his attitude as ○○○○’s atmosphere and Defendant 1’s president, and Defendant 1’s relation with the Plaintiff, and reversed the statement made by the police. However, as seen earlier, Defendant 1 may be punished by a fine due to defamation; Defendant 1 may be punished by defamation; thus, Defendant 4 could not give favorable statements to the Plaintiff; and Defendant corporation also ordered and controlled employees to prevent ○○○○ from giving a fluorous speech unfavorable to the Plaintiff. As such, it is more believed that Defendant 1’s statement at the time of investigation was made by the police that had no external pressure or influence.

2. Whether he commits an indecent act or sexual intercourse by force of Defendant 1;

A. Facts recognized

As above, as long as the plaintiff's statement is reliable, the following facts are not disputed between the parties, or they can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3-1 through 5, Eul evidence 4-1 through 11, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, 3, 6, Eul evidence 2-1 through 6, the witness non-party 4's testimony, and the results of the plaintiff's examination.

(1) Status of the parties

① Defendant 1, who was employed by Defendant 2 as the president of ○○○, a child welfare facility operated by Defendant 2 (hereinafter “Defendant corporation”) on March 1, 2002, and was employed on May 20, 2006 at the young age of 33 years of age, and was employed by Defendant 2 as the general director at ○○○, a child welfare facility operated by the Defendant 2 corporation (hereinafter “Defendant corporation”), and was employed until April 37, 2006. The third person, who was aged 37 years of age as of April 206, is the father-Nam who had two children between the Nonparty 3, who was pregnant.

② As a holder of a certificate of qualification for social workers of Grade II, the Plaintiff was employed to ○○○ upon the recommendation of a guidance professor around June 15, 2005, and was employed by the end of July of the same year as a daily class employee who cares for the daily lives of the children of the facility and was employed by the end of July of the same year as a regular employee of ○○○○○○○ on August 1 of the same year, the Plaintiff, along with Nonparty 1 team leader, worked as a teacher of the program (such as planning and operation of the program, operation of the program, and learning guidance to enable the children of the facility to adapt to the social life).

③ Defendant 1 had the authority to employ and dismiss employees, and had the desire to participate in social welfare work to the extent that he was appointed as the president of ○○○ by recognizing the young age of 33 (hereinafter “the young age”). Defendant 1: (a) had a strong character of external and self-refluence; (b) had an atmosphere that, even if the employees were unable to properly perform their duties, employees could not see or refuse to give unfair instructions because they did not know about it; (c) had a large number of opportunities to work with the president and the director in charge of the program teacher’s duties; (d) had been pointed out from Defendant 1, who did not want to attend the social welfare work, and did not actively express his opinion; and (e) the Plaintiff did not appear to have been able to have been able to interfere with the Plaintiff’s duty of care with the Plaintiff’s appearance or ability without having been able to interfere with the Plaintiff’s life-oriented or non-party 1’s ability.

④ In addition, Defendant 1: (a) took advantage of the atmosphere in which he frequently made drinking place with employees or external personnel related to social welfare so that female employees including the Plaintiff attend the drinking room; (b) took advantage of the characteristics of the usual child welfare facility, which frequently expressed that children and the school teachers are potter and love between the Plaintiff; (c) took advantage of the atmosphere, Defendant 1 attempted to pool or kid against the Defendant 1’s ordinary female members; and (d) asked Nonparty 6 of the daily team teacher to pool; and even, (c) took advantage of why he was pool, Nonparty 6 of the daily team teacher to see that he was able to cause a sense of sexual shame to female employees, such as “I ambro-patha,” and did not see any speech or behavior that could cause a sense of sexual humiliation to them, but did not display the head of ○○○ family and the head of his family status.

(2) Sexual indecent act and sexual intercourse with the plaintiff

(1) Sexual indecent acts and sexual intercourse between April 3, 2006 and 02:00 on the following day.

Defendant 1, at around 19:00 on April 3, 2006, he was unable to expect the result of the operation of the program teacher system that he first implemented in the social welfare facility, and around 19:00 on the frequency of △△△△△△ located in the Soh-si, the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1’s team leader were created together with the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1’s team leader in order to ensure that the Plaintiff’s performance in performing the program work is well-grounded and the horse is well-known, and the program teacher must be able to actively express himself in the presence of others, and the program teacher is required to have been able to express himself actively in the presence of others. On the other hand, Nonparty 1’s team leader continued to have been able to express his opinion to the Plaintiff, while the Plaintiff was unable to vindicate and hear his position.

Defendant 1: (a) was first put Nonparty 1 in the house and left only the Plaintiff and himself, Defendant 1 demanded that the Plaintiff check one’s sexual organ by saying, “I am the mold; (b) I am the Plaintiff “I am the string; (c) I am the part of the program work in need of active nature; (d) I am the part of the Plaintiff; and (e) I am the part of the Plaintiff, “I am off if I am off the clothes; (e) I am the part of the other part of the body; and (e) I am the other part of the body.”

Around 24:00 on April 3, 2006, the Plaintiff calculated the expenses in advance at a singing room, and forced the Plaintiff, who entered the bar and singhouse again, to answer that the Plaintiff may be off or off, and that the Plaintiff could not get off. The Plaintiff answer that the Plaintiff could not get out of the bar. The Plaintiff demanded that her sexual organ be met, sing off, and sing off, and immediately sent. The Plaintiff, without any tobacco and sexual experience, was aware of this similarity act itself, was first the president was able to demand her working day, who is an employee, but he could not demand her dismissal, but forced or refuse the dismissal of the Plaintiff as well as the Plaintiff’s dismissal of the Plaintiff.

Defendant 1, who had extended singing hours at his own direction, demanded the Plaintiff to be off his clothes. Defendant 1, who did not get off his clothes, was placed on the Plaintiff’s shoes and sing off the pans, sing off his panty, and shock. Defendant 1, who attempted to put his sexual organ into the Plaintiff’s single, but ceased to be not well good, was right to leave the single at the single, and the Plaintiff was forced to write off the single at the single, and returned to the Plaintiff’s single on the day.

(2) An indecent act in gender committed from April 4, 2006 to August of the same month.

On April 4, 2006, Defendant 1 left the Plaintiff as the president room, and forced the Plaintiff to continue to put the sexual organ to the Plaintiff, demanding that the Plaintiff grow up and quickly, and do not come up to the quality of the fish, and the Plaintiff would be dismissed if it is difficult for Defendant 1 to do so, and the Plaintiff would be dismissed if it refuses the demand. The same is that other welfare institutions could not work as social workers after the dismissal from Defendant 1 at ○○○○○○○○, in accordance with Defendant 1’s demand. By the eightth day of the same month thereafter, Defendant 1 had to put the Defendant 1’s sexual organ into the hands and the hands of Defendant 1 at the president of the morning or P.M., by the eightth day of the same month, and Defendant 1 attempted to put in the situation of the Plaintiff.

(3) Sexual intercourse between April 10, 200 and 13.

At around April 10, 2006 or around 16:30 on April 10, 2006, Defendant 1 opened a office with the office of the Plaintiff to employ the competent aquatic watcher in ○○○○○, and opened the office. On the one hand, Defendant 1 opened a car to the apartment provided by the Defendant corporation as the Plaintiff’s lodging house by setting the direction while the Plaintiff opened a car at the Plaintiff’s office, and opened it to the apartment provided by the Defendant corporation as the Plaintiff’s lodging house. On the other hand, Defendant 1 attempted to enter the Plaintiff as soon as the Plaintiff’s sexual flag and panty, she laid down the Plaintiff’s stroke and panty, but the Plaintiff first inserted it into the Plaintiff’s drinking book, but did not have been inserted well.

(4) Sexual intercourses made on April 29, 2006

around April 28, 2006, Defendant 1 sent the Plaintiff to the drinking place with the Plaintiff at ordinary level 】 Nonparty 7, who was on the face of the Plaintiff, along with the Director General of the Medical Center 】 At around 23:40, Defendant 1 asked the Plaintiff to drive the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff at around 23:40, and demanded that the director general of the Medical Center go to the Plaintiff’s lodging place, not the ○○○○, and the Plaintiff was to go to the Plaintiff.

At around 00:20 the following day, Defendant 1, while drinking beer with TV, had the Plaintiff her finger and knife the TV with her fingers, had the Plaintiff her fingers, and had the Plaintiff go off with her clothes while her being off, her clothes the Plaintiff off with her body so that the Plaintiff, while her being off, her clothes, exceeded her clothes, her body, her flad with the Plaintiff, and her sexual organ flad with the Plaintiff, and her sexual organ flad with her sexual organ flad with the Plaintiff’s flab, so it was easy for the Plaintiff to flad with her sexual organ inserted into the Plaintiff’s musical organ 3 and 4 times, and had the Plaintiff engage in sexual intercourse with the Plaintiff, and had the Plaintiff inflict an injury on the Plaintiff’s flag.

(3) passed after April 29, 2006

① 원고는 같은 해 4. 20. 이후 원고의 이상한 상태를 눈치챈 소외 4에게 피고 1이 강제로 성기 애무 및 성행위를 하려고 했다고 얘기한데 이어, 2006. 4. 29. ‘원장에게 당했다’고 이야기하였으며, 이후 ○○○을 그만두기로 마음먹고, 2006. 5. 6. ○○○의 소외 5 과장에게는 학업을 이유로 그만둔다면서 인수인계를 위해 5. 말까지 나오겠다고 말하였고, 원고의 부모에게도 공부를 위해 직장을 그만 둔다고 하였으나 이상한 낌새를 눈치 챈 원고의 어머니 소외 8로부터 추궁을 당하자, 피고 1로부터 위 인정사실 기재와 같이 성폭행을 당한 사실을 털어놓아 원고의 부모도 이를 알게 되었으며, 이후 부모의 만류로 ○○○에는 출근하지 아니하다가 2006. 5. 15. 사직하고, 다음날 원고에 대한 피감독자간음 및 성폭력범죄의 처벌 및 피해자보호 등에 관한 법률(업무상위력등에 의한 추행, 이하 이 법을 ‘성폭법’이라 한다) 위반의 피의사실로 피고 1을 고소하였다.

② From May 16, 2006 to February 23, 2006, Defendant 1 or Defendant 3 expressed the Plaintiff’s Handphone with a telephone or text, and around the 20th day of the same month, Nonparty 3 and the Defendant’s mother claimed the Plaintiff’s house and called “an opportunity to commit a crime” and “an opportunity to commit a crime,” and the said Defendant’s family members, such as Defendant 1’s wife, mother, etc., found the Plaintiff’s house and the Plaintiff’s mother “I throw away our honor and anything, and use it only once every day.”

③ Defendant 1, who is the Plaintiff’s relative and Nonparty 4, the teacher of ○○○○○, was investigated as a witness at the police station, and shown the legal counseling case with the effect that “if you attend the police station, it may be defamation, and a fine may be imposed up to 20 million won,” Defendant 1 instructed the Plaintiff to make a statement unfavorable to the Plaintiff at an investigation agency’s investigation. Defendant 1 also retired from the president on May 20, 2006, and Nonparty 9, the chief director, was in charge of the president’s direct position, so that he could not make a statement unfavorable to ○○○○○○○○ who was investigated as a witness.

④ On September 28, 2006, the office of the Gwangju District Prosecutors’ Office denied the facts of crime while Defendant 1 had sexual intercourse with the Plaintiff. In particular, Nonparty 1’s statement or sexual speech and behavior was consistent with this, Nonparty 1’s statement that the Plaintiff had been well aware of Defendant 1, and Nonparty 1’s sexual speech and behavior did not take place. Defendant 1’s sexual speech and behavior as the president, Defendant 1’s sexual speech and behavior was frequent, and Defendant 1’s demand for similarity was insufficient to recognize the facts of crime. Nonparty 4 and 6’s statement that the Plaintiff had no specific violence or intimidation in the singing room or apartment, and the Plaintiff, the victim, was also unable to request the Plaintiff from the president for an extension of the time limit for sexual assault or sexual harassment in light of the fact that the Plaintiff had been forced to commit an indecent act or sexual harassment at any time since April 4, 2006, it was difficult to view that the Plaintiff had been forced to commit an indecent act or sexual harassment.

(4) The plaintiff's situation since April 29, 2006

The Plaintiff did not have a smoke or sexual experience at all before he reached the age of 21 as of April 2006. Defendant 1 complained of physical evidence, such as a repetitive sexual misconduct and sexual assault and a malute disorder, a sense of responsibility and scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic s (s).

B. Whether Defendant 1’s tort liability exists

(1) Article 303(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 11(1) of the Sexual Exposure Act refer to the force sufficient to suppress the victim's free will. Since it is not tangible or intangible, it is possible to use social, economic, and political status or authority as well as assault and intimidation, and it is also possible to use social, economic, and political status or authority. Whether sexual intercourse or indecent act was committed shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the content and degree of tangible power exercised and the type of offender, age of the victim, relationship between the offender and the victim before the offender, circumstances leading to the act, specific form of act, and overall circumstances at the time of the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Do2506, Jan. 23, 1998; 2004Do5868, Jul. 29, 2005).

According to the above facts, from April 3, 2006 to April 28, 2006, Defendant 1's sexual indecent act and sexual intercourse with the Plaintiff against the Plaintiff was at risk of the Plaintiff due to frequent quality and inundation with Defendant 1, the president. From the previous drinking place to the previous drinking place, the above Defendant committed an indecent act and indecent act with the Plaintiff's resistance by taking advantage of the president's position. The sexual indecent act at the subsequent president room and around April 10, 2006 and around April 29, 2006 also viewed that the sexual intercourse with the Plaintiff could be dismissed or prevented from doing an indecent act in the area of social welfare in the south-dong area, it was reasonable to view that Defendant 1 could not easily be seen that it was under the restraint of the Plaintiff's sexual intercourse with the president by taking advantage of his sexual impulse status as an employee of the Plaintiff 1 through ○○○ by force.

The defendant 1's act constitutes a tort that infringes on the plaintiff's right of sexual self-determination against the plaintiff's will by intention, and the plaintiff has difficulty in academic, workplace life, and daily life due to sexual humiliation and its mental suffering, and such mental suffering is expected to continue in the future. The defendant 1 is liable to compensate for damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the above tort.

3. Whether the defendant corporation is liable for employers;

The phrase "in relation to the performance of duties", which is an element for the employer's liability under Article 756 of the Civil Act, means "in relation to the performance of duties," if the employee's tort objectively appears to be objectively related to the employee's business activities, performance of duties, or performance of duties without considering any subjective circumstances. Here, whether it is objectively related to the performance of duties of the employer should be determined by considering the degree related to the employee's original duties and the tort, the degree of damage to the employee, and the degree of responsibility for the employer to create risks and lack of preventive measures (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da39146, Feb. 25, 192). As acknowledged earlier, since the sexual misconduct or sexual intercourse in this case was done on the extension line of duties, such as an apartment house used as a ceremony, room, or employee's lodging, it is objectively related to the performance of duties, regardless of whether the employee's personal intent simply satisfies sexual desire, Defendant 1 and the employer are jointly liable for damages.

However, in light of the fact that Defendant 1, the president of ○○○○○, a child welfare facility, caused problems in relation to sexual indecent conduct or did not report damage since 2002, as the Defendant corporation, it is not easy to expect that the Plaintiff, as its subordinate employee, will engage in sexual indecent conduct or sexual intercourse by force. In full view of the fact that the tort was committed closely, limiting the scope of liability of the Defendant corporation is consistent with the ideology of the damage compensation system that is fair and reasonable allocation of damages. Therefore, the responsibility of the Defendant corporation is limited to 60%.

4. Scope of liability for damages

(a) Actual income: 14,705,995 won;

The Plaintiff had earned earned income of KRW 1,258,450 per month from the Defendant corporation while working at ○○○○○○○. However, Defendant 1’s sexual indecent act and sexual intercourse have discontinued to ○○○○○○. If the Plaintiff had not committed the above Defendant’s tort, it would have been able to obtain monthly income of KRW 1,258,450 per month while continuing to work at ○○○○○○○○ without any tort. Since the Plaintiff sought a new workplace after one year, the actual income is the same as KRW 1,258,450 per month from May 15, 2006, which was 14,705, which was 14,705,995 (applicable to ○○○○○○○○).

(b) Active damages: Medical expenses 381,160 won; and

(c) Compensation money;

Defendant 1: (a) was the president of a child welfare facility who was successful in the field of social welfare with the remaining 37 years of age at the time of assaulting the Plaintiff; (b) on the other hand, the Plaintiff did not graduate from a two-year junior college at ○○○○ and did not have any academic experience as an unmarried woman starting at the first time as a social welfare worker; (c) the Plaintiff was able to take care of the nature and work ability of the Plaintiff as well as to change the nature of the Plaintiff by being aware of this fact; (d) Defendant 1, as the president, was trying to improve the Plaintiff’s ability to recover itself and work by using the work environment where the Plaintiff had no mental distress so that he could display her name and practical ability; and (e) Defendant 1, as the head of the police station, had no mental distress so that the Plaintiff would have been deprived of his ability to use the Plaintiff’s sexual intercourse with the Defendant 1, who was able to use the Plaintiff’s sexual intercourse with the Defendant 4’s mental disorder.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, Defendant 1 is liable to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 115,087,155 (i.e., lost income of KRW 14,705,95 + medical expenses of KRW 381,160 + consolation money of KRW 100,00,000 + KRW 100,000), and Defendant 1’s corporate employer is jointly and severally liable with Defendant 1 to pay KRW 69,012,293 out of the above amount (i.e., KRW 115,087,155 x 0.6). Since the Plaintiff is jointly and severally seeking to pay the amount that falls short of the amount, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff at the rate of KRW 65,087,155, and from May 15, 2006 to February 21, 2008.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Jae-sung (Presiding Judge)