1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid five million won to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Plaintiff’s objection thereto from December 26, 2012 to January 22, 2016.

1. Determination as to the principal lawsuit

A. In full view of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of the Plaintiff’s liability for damages, the Defendant prepared and submitted a complaint stating that “the Plaintiff saw the Defendant’s timber on December 26, 2012 before the exit 2, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, on December 26, 2012, it would be subject to investigation by the Plaintiff as a suspect, by breaking up and breaking up a letter of complaint stating that “the Plaintiff saw the Defendant’s seat in front of the exit 2, Seongdong-gu, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, and caused the injury to the left seat and the left seat that requires three weeks’ treatment.” However, the Plaintiff’s suspicion was not acknowledged, rather, the Defendant was indicted for a crime without prosecution (this Court Decision 2013Da2794) upon the Plaintiff’s complaint, and the above court, on July 30, 2014, concluded that the Defendant was guilty by a fine of two million won and 205 million won.

According to the above facts of recognition, it is recognized that the defendant committed a tort against the plaintiff by the method of free dismissal of the plaintiff, barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to compensate for property and mental damage suffered by the plaintiff due to the defendant's tort.

B. The Plaintiff asserts that the amount of damages should be assessed as damages equivalent to KRW 12 million as compensation for actual income, transportation expenses, and mental shock, which are the property damages suffered during a period that was not due to the investigation of a false horse detection device, the receipt of a written accusation complaint against the Defendant, and the submission of a written accusation to the prosecution according to the Defendant’s disposition of non-guilty suspicion, etc., and that the amount equivalent to KRW 8 million as compensation for damages should be paid.

First, it is insufficient to prove the causal relationship between the lost income and the property damage equivalent to the transportation cost claimed by the plaintiff and the health care unit, Gap evidence No. 5 alone, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.