1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the evidence Nos. 1 through 3 of the judgment on the cause of the claim, the Defendant committed rape on October 30, 2013, and the Defendant was convicted of the facts constituting the above crime on November 17, 2017, and the above judgment became final and conclusive.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that he did not rape the plaintiff.

However, in a civil trial, even if it is not bound by the fact-finding of a criminal trial, the fact that the criminal trial already became final and conclusive on the same factual basis is material evidence, and it cannot be acknowledged that there is no special circumstance where it is difficult to adopt the fact-finding of a criminal trial in light of other evidence submitted in the civil trial.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da24276, Sept. 30, 1997). The evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to reject the determination of the facts of the final and conclusive criminal judgment. Thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is rejected.

Since the defendant's above tort is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff suffered heavy mental pain, the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for the damages incurred thereby.

2. The defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is proved to have expired the three-year extinctive prescription under Article 766 (1) of the Civil Code.

On October 30, 2013, the lawsuit of this case was filed on May 24, 2018, after three years from October 30, 2013, which was the date of the defendant's tort. Thus, the plaintiff's right to claim damages had already expired before the lawsuit of this case was filed.

Therefore, the defendant's defense is justified.

On the other hand, the plaintiff, as the plaintiff, has actually and specifically recognized the facts of the requirements for tort on August 18, 2017, which was the date of a criminal trial of the defendant's criminal trial on the above crime. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for damages in this case is reasonable.