beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff managed the property of the clan E and the family council of this case as the chairperson of the D clan clan (hereinafter "the clan of this case"). The plaintiff recently sold the sale price of the real estate owned by the clan.
Defendant B and F filed a complaint with the Plaintiff by pointing out false facts that the Plaintiff embezzled money owned by the instant clan Association, rather than a member of the instant clan clan, which is a subordinate group, and Defendant B and F filed a non-prosecution disposition to the effect that the Plaintiff was innocent on January 27, 2016, although the investigation was conducted by the Suwon District Prosecutor’s Office’s Office of Eunpyeong District Prosecutors’ Office (2015 type No. 19425), but the Defendant B appealed against the Plaintiff, but the appeal was dismissed.
Defendant C also filed a complaint with the Plaintiff by pointing out false facts that the Plaintiff forged the private document and embezzled the money owned by the instant clans. The investigation was conducted by the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office (2015-type No. 25729) on January 27, 2016, but a non-prosecution disposition was rendered to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was suspected, and the appeal was dismissed even though Defendant C appealed appealed.
The plaintiff caused the defendants' false accusation to the police and the prosecution several times, and suffered severe mental pain by receiving suspicion and responsibility that he/she paid the money to the clans of this case from the clans.
Therefore, the defendants are obliged to pay consolation money of KRW 2,000,000 to each plaintiff as well as damages for delay.
2. Even if the complainant was subject to an investigation due to the suspected fact that the complainant filed a complaint and received a disposition of non-guilty suspicion, the complainant’s act cannot be deemed as constituting a tort unless it is based on intention or gross negligence to the extent that the complaint can be deemed as an abuse of right.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Da29481, Apr. 28, 2006; 2006Da46360, Apr. 12, 2007). Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 respectively.