1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was charged with anless accusation and was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for ten months in the first instance trial, and appealed, and filed an application for fact-finding with the Daegu District Court 2017No980, Daegu District Court. The competent court accepted the application and sent a demand for fact-finding and a demand for fact-finding to the taxi logistics department in Daegu Metropolitan City.

However, even though the defendant received the fact-finding and the demand for fact-finding sent from the Daegu District Court in the course of performing his duties as public officials belonging to the Daegu District Court, he did not deliver the fact-finding inquiry to the person in charge of the affairs related to the fact-finding inquiry inquiry.

Accordingly, the plaintiff was sentenced to the dismissal judgment because he did not receive the time inquiry reply from Daegu Metropolitan City, resulting in physical or mental suffering in the course of prison entrance, or failed to hold a proper pleading in the above appellate trial. Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay 5 million won and damages for delay due to tort damages to the plaintiff.

2. According to each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 5, 10, and 11, the fact that the defendant worked as a public official belonging to the tax office of Daegu Metropolitan City and did not confirm the fact that the fact that the fact inquiry statement and the demand letter of fact inquiry by the above appellate trial division were kept in his/her document files, and that the worker in charge did not respond to the fact inquiry by the Daegu District Court over three times through the wind, but the fact that the person in charge did not deliver them to the person in charge of the relevant affairs was found to have been unable to respond to the fact inquiry by the Daegu District Court. However, according to the purport of the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of the above fact inquiry statement and the whole arguments, the person in charge of the reply in relation to the fact inquiry received contact from the court on July 14, 2017 after the plaintiff (the defendant at that time)'s defense counsel inspected and copied them on July 18, 2017.