The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal are the judgment of the first instance.

1. Basic facts

A. At around 23:55 on May 17, 2016, the Defendant filed a report under suspicion of indecent act by force (hereinafter “instant report”) with the Defendant asserting that “Around the same day as the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol in the front of the Gwangju Dong-gu apartment complex C, and as the Plaintiff arrived at the destination of the Defendant, Dab the Defendant was forced to commit an indecent act by deceiving the Defendant’s shoulder and chest.” Accordingly, the Plaintiff was subject to a non-prosecution disposition on July 20, 2016.

B. In relation to the instant report, the Plaintiff filed the instant report with the intent to have the Plaintiff punished even though the Plaintiff did not commit any indecent act against the Defendant, and filed a complaint against the Defendant on the charge of false accusation by asserting that it was “The Defendant filed the instant report,” and the Defendant received the disposition of non-prosecution on December 9, 2016 without suspicion (insufficient evidence).

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was made by the Defendant due to the Defendant’s false report, and suffered mental damage. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages to the Plaintiff amounting to KRW 10,000,000 (i.e., KRW 1,000,000 for lost income) and damages for delay (i.e., KRW 9,000 for loss).

B. That the Defendant’s complainant was subject to an investigation due to the suspected fact that the complainant filed a complaint and was subject to an investigation.

In light of the above legal principles, the complainant’s act cannot be readily determined as tort unless it is intentional or gross negligence to the extent that it can be recognized as abuse of the right (see Supreme Court Decisions 93Da29556, Jan. 25, 1994; 2005Da29481, Apr. 28, 2006; 2006Da46360, Apr. 12, 2007). In light of the above legal principles, the complainant’s disposition of non-prosecution against the Plaintiff in relation to the report of this case is not sufficient (Evidence).