beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 15,00,00 for Plaintiff A; (b) KRW 50,000,000 for Plaintiff B; and (c) for each of them, from November 15, 201 to September 2015.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On November 15, 2011, the Defendant raped Plaintiff B, who was under the age of nine as of November 15, 201, and was raped four times until around January 201, 201.
B. On May 16, 2014, the Defendant was indicted of sexual assault against Plaintiff B on the following grounds: (a) on September 4, 2014, under the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and the Protection of Victims Thereof (13 years of age, minor rape, etc.) and was sentenced to imprisonment with labor for ten years on September 4, 2014; (b) thereafter, the Defendant appealed from the Daegu High Court No. 2014No523 and Supreme Court No. 2015Do4370; (c) however, the said judgment became final and conclusive on May 28, 2015.
C. The plaintiff A is the plaintiff Eul's reference.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Gap evidence 7 and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. 1) The fact that the defendant rapes the plaintiff B, who is only nine years of age, five times of age, is identical to the above, and it is clear in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff B, who is the father, and the plaintiff A, who is the father, suffered severe mental distress. Thus, the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiffs for consolation money for mental distress suffered by the plaintiffs, barring special circumstances. 2) The defendant is asserting that there was no rape of the plaintiff B.
However, even if the civil trial is not bound by the finding of facts in the criminal trial, the fact that the criminal trial already finalized on the same factual basis is material evidence, and thus, it cannot be acknowledged that there is no special circumstance where it is difficult to adopt the judgment of facts in the criminal trial in light of other evidence submitted in the civil trial.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da24276, Sept. 30, 1997). In the instant case, as seen in the underlying facts, the Supreme Court has already held that the Defendant’s crime against the Plaintiff B was committed.