2017 Ghana 506390 Damages, etc.

1. A;

2. B

3. C

Plaintiff 2 and 3 are minors, and the legal representative D and the parent of a person with parental authority

A

1. E;

2. F;

3. G.

October 18, 2017

December 20, 2017

1. Defendant E shall pay to Plaintiff A 8,571,428 won, Plaintiff B, and C 2,142,857 won, and each of them shall be paid 5% interest per annum from May 19, 2015 to December 20, 2017, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. Defendant F shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 5,714,285, and KRW 1,428,571, respectively, and each of them shall be 5% interest per annum from May 19, 2015 to December 20, 2017, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

3. Defendant G pays to Plaintiff A 5,714,285 won, Plaintiff B, and C 1,428,571 won, respectively, and 5% interest per annum from May 19, 2015 to December 20, 2017, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

4. The plaintiffs' respective remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

5. Of the costs of lawsuit, 50% is borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder is borne by the Defendants.

6.The above paragraphs 1 to 3 can be provisionally executed.

Defendant E shall pay to Plaintiff A 14,28,571 won, 6,428,571 won, and 5% interest per annum from May 19, 2015 to the service date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment; Defendant F shall pay to Plaintiff A 9,485,714 won, 4,285,714 won, and 5% interest per annum from May 19, 2015 to the service date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case; Defendant G shall pay to Plaintiff A 9,485,714 won, 35, 4285, 714 won, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment; Defendant G shall pay to the Plaintiff Da 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment; and from May 15, 2015 to the day of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Plaintiff B and C are students who were enrolled in a branch school of J elementary school located in Sungsung-si I in 2015, and Plaintiff A is the mother of Plaintiff B and C. H was the principal of the J elementary school around 2015, and Defendant E’s spouse, Defendant F, and H were the children of H.

B. On July 21, 2016, H was sentenced by Suwon District Court 2015Da4897 to a judgment of conviction on the following criminal facts committed by indecent act, which ordered the completion of a sexual assault treatment program for 80 hours (hereinafter referred to as “relevant criminal case first instance judgment”). On this basis, H and the Prosecutor appealed as Suwon District Court 2016No523, but the appellate court dismissed all the above appeals on December 15, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “relevant criminal case appellate court judgment”).

On April 20, 2015, Defendant (H; hereinafter the same shall apply) took advantage of the victim’s own hand and frightened the victim’s own hand, and she saw the victim to have his/her chest son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son, and son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son, and son son son son son son, son son son son son son son son son son, and son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son, and son son son son son son son.

C. On December 21, 2016, H appealed against the above appellate judgment, and filed an appeal to the Supreme Court Decision 2017Do483 (hereinafter referred to as “the Supreme Court on the grounds of final appeal on the relevant death case”). On March 2, 2017, H died while the said final appeal was pending, and the Supreme Court decided to dismiss the public prosecution on March 17, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, 2, Gap evidence 49, Eul evidence 1 through 3, 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Establishment of liability for damages;

A. According to the above facts of recognition, H committed a tort committed by indecent act by compulsion of Plaintiff A, and it is apparent in light of the empirical rule that the Plaintiffs suffered serious mental distress due to the above tort by H, and H is liable to compensate for the emotional distress suffered by the Plaintiffs.

B. The Defendants asserted that H did not constitute indecent act by compulsion of the Plaintiff A. However, considering the facts acknowledged in the preceding 1.3, 4, 14, 22, 24 through 26, 28, and 30 through 47 evidence (including each number) as well as the overall purport of each of the following circumstances, the court's finding of facts as to the same fact in a civil trial even if it is not bound by the finding of facts in the criminal trial, can not be found to be consistent with the facts in light of other evidence submitted in the civil trial, unless there are special circumstances where it is difficult to adopt a judgment on facts in the criminal trial in light of other evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da24276, Sept. 30, 197; Supreme Court Decision 97Da24276, Sept. 1, 1997; Supreme Court Decision 2001Hu16666, Apr. 1, 201>

3. Scope of liability for damages

(a) Positive damages;

1) Plaintiff A asserts that, since Plaintiff A appointed an attorney-at-law to file a criminal complaint against H, H should compensate for the said attorney-at-law’s expenses paid by Plaintiff A.

2) Under the Korean legal system without the mandatory lawyer system, there is no proximate causal relationship between the tort itself which caused the claim for damages and the attorney's fees. Thus, the attorney's fees cannot be included in the damage claim arising from the tort itself (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da15363, Jun. 10, 2010). However, in special circumstances where the attorney's fees are unable to perform a lawsuit without the attorney in light of the details and details of attorney's fees, the value of the subject matter of lawsuit, and the nature and degree of difficulty of delegated duties, etc., the attorney's fees paid by the victim or creditor can be deemed as losses with proximate causal relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Da81315, Jan. 27, 2012; 2012Da9621, Dec. 24, 2014).

(b) consolation money;

With respect to the amount of consolation money that H pays to the plaintiffs, the health team, H was the principal of the elementary school, who was the principal of the plaintiff B and C, and was in the middle school, and required high ethics awareness, the teachers and staff and parents of the plaintiff A who were parents at several times, and the crime is not good. Due to the above tort committed by H, the plaintiff A caused a considerable sense of sexual shame, and due to the conflict between H and some of his parents who did not recognize the crime, the plaintiff A did not live a normal life at a place where he was living and was under the influence of living, and the plaintiff B and C had no choice but to move to another area. Accordingly, the second damage seems to be a little. H continued denying and defending the crime while the related criminal case is pending, the defendants, who were their successors, argued the facts of the crime in this case and endeavor to recover the damage of the plaintiffs, and the plaintiff A shall pay consolation money to the plaintiff 200 won and the plaintiff 200 won for each of them.

C. Sub-committee

As recognized in the above 1. H on March 2, 2017: (i) Defendant E,F, and G inherits the rights and obligations of H at the rate of 3/7,2/7,2/77 each; (ii) Defendant E is 8,571,428 won (i.e., KRW 20,000 x less than 3/7; hereinafter the same shall apply) and C with respect to each of the above 2,142,857 won (i.e., KRW 5,00 x 3/70) calculated on or after the date of the above 20-day tort x 15% of the total damages for delay x 205% of the total damages for delay calculated on or after the date of the above 20-day tort x 205% of the total damages for delay x 15% of the total damages for delay x 20% of the total damages for delay calculated on or after the date of the above judgment.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiffs' respective claims against the defendants are justified within the scope of the above recognition, and each remaining claims are without merit, and they are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-young

1) The plaintiffs initially filed a complaint with the defendant 3,20,00,000 won for the defendant B and C from May 19, 2015 to the delivery date of the copy of the complaint in this case, and 15,000,000 won for each of them, and 15,000 won for each of them, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the date of complete payment. However, the plaintiff submitted a complaint for the claim that "the above H was deceased before the delivery date of the copy of the complaint in this case, and the defendant did not submit a separate request for correction of the indication of the party to correct the defendant in this case to the defendants as the heir of the deceased H, and did not submit a separate request for correction of the purport of the claim. However, the plaintiff's previous purport of the claim shall be determined by selecting each of the defendants to claim damages for each of the above inheritance shares.