1. The Defendant’s KRW 7,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from March 20, 2015 to April 7, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant have known about about about 10 years through a gathering of Orabaco Association.

B. On March 20, 2015, the Defendant, along with the Plaintiff, Da, and the Plaintiff, who is a member of the new club, drinked alcoholic beverages at a restaurant near the Aju University, and performed alcoholic beverages at around 05:0 on the same day, he dices by dividing it into a place to the Plaintiff’s house located in the Sinwon-si, Suwon-si with C and D, and the Plaintiff sleeps at the place to work.

C. On March 20, 2015, at around 07:00, the Defendant: (a) exceeded the Plaintiff’s bar and panty that D was under the influence of alcohol, and was diving into the Plaintiff’s house; and (b) inserted the Plaintiff’s sexual organ into the Plaintiff’s panty; and (c) subsequently, the Plaintiff, who was broken out from a lock, was placed at the right angle of the Plaintiff’s body, by inserting the Plaintiff’s sexual organ into the Plaintiff’s drinking part, and then inserting the Plaintiff’s sexual organ into the Plaintiff’s drinking part, thereby having sexual intercourse.

As above, the Defendant was indicted with Suwon District Court 2015Gohap442 on the charges of quasi-rapeing the Plaintiff, and the said court sentenced the Defendant to two years’ imprisonment on February 16, 2016.

Therefore, the Defendant appealed as Seoul High Court Decision 2016No746, but the above court rendered a ruling dismissing the Defendant’s appeal on June 9, 2016, and again appealed as Supreme Court Decision 2016Do913 Decided August 8, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleading

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant recognized the fact of quasi-rapeing the plaintiff, and since it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff suffered mental suffering, the defendant is obligated to do so in money for mental damage suffered by the plaintiff due to the above tort.

Regarding the scope of damages, the plaintiff and the defendant.