beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion appears to have taken charge of the Plaintiff’s chest within the lottery sales store operated by the Plaintiff during October 2012, and the Defendant, around October 25, 2012 through October 26, 2012, committed indecent act by compulsion of the Plaintiff by another means in the same manner in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul D restaurant located in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul, Seoul, and caused emotional distress to the Plaintiff by causing a false smell to neighbors. The Defendant is obliged to pay consolation money of KRW 60,000 to the Plaintiff for such damages, and the Defendant first seeks part of them.
2. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement Nos. 1 and 6 and the testimony of the witness E and F alone, it is insufficient to acknowledge the Defendant’s indecent act by compulsion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement Nos. 1 and 2, the Defendant was subject to a disposition of non-prosecution to the effect that the Plaintiff was guilty in the criminal case in which the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant on the grounds of the above indecent act by compulsion, and the fact that the Plaintiff appealed against it and filed an appeal
B. However, according to the evidence examined above, the defendant did not have any indecent act by force against the plaintiff during the investigation process of the above criminal case, and on the contrary, the defendant stated to the effect that the plaintiff left the plaintiff in the lottery store operated by the plaintiff on October 2012 and kiscing the plaintiff's body in the course of spreading it into the wind in which the plaintiff kiscing the defendant and kiscing the defendant scke. However, the defendant can recognize the fact that the defendant already made the above similar statement to E who had a close relation before the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant as an indecent act by force, but there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the defendant's tort liability against the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.