1. The Defendant’s KRW 7,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from September 29, 2012 to May 14, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

1. The following facts may be acknowledged either in dispute between the parties or in combination with the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 3:

The defendant on September 28, 2012 04:30 on September 28, 2012 D's summary in Daejeon Seo-gu C

At the 3th room, the plaintiff and the plaintiff who are the employees of the above main office were drinking.

B. During the process of drinking and dividing conversations, the Defendant met the Plaintiff’s chest and took the Plaintiff’s buckbucks.

Since then, the defendant is found off the panty, as soon as he is on the part of the plaintiff's right by walking the spons, and as long as the plaintiff is placed on the spons, and the plaintiff is unsponsed against it, the defendant shall be exempted from the panty.

C. Since then, the plaintiff gets sound and tightly resisted by the defendant, the defendant was seated in a sofion and left the plaintiff.

The plaintiff and the defendant met from the above 3rd room, and thereafter the above Ga.

In the main calculation team, a vision becomes a problem of the drinking value, and the defendant was pushed down both of the plaintiff's shoulder by hand and pushed down by side.

이에 원고가 피고를 잡자 피고는 주먹으로 원고의 얼굴을 1회 때리고 발로 허벅지를 1회 찼다.

E. The Plaintiff suffered from the Defendant’s above actions such as salt, tensions, and the left-hand scambling in need of treatment for about 15 days.

2. The plaintiff asserts that since the plaintiff suffered mental pain due to rape by the defendant, the defendant should pay consolation money of KRW 40,000,000 and delay damages to the plaintiff.

According to the above facts, although the defendant attempted to rape the plaintiff, it did not reach rape due to the plaintiff's resistance, and it is recognized that the defendant used violence against the plaintiff as a result of the drinking value.

This is against the plaintiff's will and constitutes a tort against the plaintiff.

It is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff suffered mental pain due to these acts of the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant is the plaintiff.