1. The Defendant’s KRW 3,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from November 10, 2017 to October 11, 2018 to the Plaintiff.

1. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was collected by the Defendant, and the Defendant committed each crime against the Plaintiff, including theft, evictionting, and obscene acts using communications media, and thereby, caused severe mental distress to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff a solatium for damages arising from tort, which is KRW 10,000,000, and damages for delay.

2. Determination

A. The defendant's defense of this case is a defense to the effect that the lawsuit in this case was instituted by a person who lacks standing to sue, and thus, is unlawful. Thus, in a lawsuit for performance, the person who asserts himself/herself as a person holding standing to sue has standing to sue and who is asserted as a person performing obligation to sue. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion itself does not require the existence of standing to sue as a party, and the plaintiff and the defendant do not actually have the right to demand performance or are the person performing obligation to perform, and the existence of the right to demand performance actually exists or not must be proved through the deliberation of the merits (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da14797, Jun. 14, 1994; 2003Da44387, 44394, Oct. 7, 2005). The defendant's defense of this case is without merit.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in each of the statements in Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 5-1, Eul evidence 7-4, and Eul evidence 2 as to the merits, the defendant led to an internal relationship with the plaintiff for about 7-8 years from around 2007 to November 2015, and the plaintiff divorcedd with Byung who is the husband on April 26, 2012, and the defendant stolen the plaintiff's mobile phone on November 18, 2015 under Suwon District Court Annyang support 2015Da7313, Apr. 26, 2016, and the defendant stolen the plaintiff's mobile phone on November 18, 2015, and leave the plaintiff's legitimate leave from the plaintiff's house on the same day.

A summary order of KRW 2,00,000 is issued for the criminal facts that the Gu refused to comply with the report of the plaintiff on the same day and insulting the police officer dispatched to the site.