1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 26, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Seoul Geumcheon Police Station as a perjury. G, a police officer belonging to the Seoul Geumcheon Police Station, investigated the Plaintiff, the Defendant, B, C, and D.

B. On June 18, 2013, G sent the case of perjury to the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors’ Office as a non-prosecution opinion (not guilty). On July 5, 2013, the Prosecutor of the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors’ Office rendered a decision not to prosecute the case of perjury (not guilty of the charge) with no suspicion of the case of perjury (not guilty of the charge).

C. The Plaintiff filed a complaint against G with the charge of neglecting his/her duties (Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office No. 21778, 2014; hereinafter "the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office") and the investigation officer of Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office I investigated the Plaintiff as the complainant.

On July 28, 2014, the investigation officer of the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office sent the case of abandonment of duties to Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office as "the case of abandonment of duties constitutes an obvious ground for not having a criminal charge by the prosecutor's complaint". The prosecutor of the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office decided not to prosecute the case of abandonment of duties on July 31, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 20 to 22, and the purport of whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Although the summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was investigated by the complainant against the Plaintiff in the case of occupational abandonment, it constitutes a tort in which the J, who did not participate in the investigation, prepared a written opinion that the Plaintiff is suspected of having been guilty. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the damages amounting to KRW 10 million due to the tort and the damages for delay.

B. Even if the court did not directly investigate the complainant against the plaintiff, since it prepared a written opinion as an investigator in charge of a duty abandonment case, such act cannot be deemed to constitute a tort. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.