1. Defendant C’s KRW 1,00,000 for Plaintiff A and 5% per annum from October 25, 2012 to January 13, 2017, respectively.

Plaintiff

In full view of the overall purport of the statements and arguments made by Gap 1-3, Eul 6, Eul 1-2, and Eul 1-2 as to the claim against the defendant Eul, the defendant Eul was indicted as the Seoul Eastern District Court 2012 high-level and about 20:30 on October 24, 2012 as to "the act of assault as stated in the above criminal facts" and the defendant Eul was sentenced to a fine not exceeding 201,000 won under the summary order of 200,000,000 won as to "the defendant Eul was sentenced to a fine not exceeding 30,000 won for the above summary order as to "the defendant Eul was sentenced to a fine not exceeding 200,000 won since the hand, etc., possessed by the plaintiff Gap in the male toilet in the Seoul East East East Station as to "the act of assault as stated in the above criminal facts" and "the defendant Eul was sentenced to a fine not exceeding the above summary order of 201,000 won".

A) The facts that the judgment was received, and the facts that the judgment became final and conclusive on August 14, 2013 are recognized. In a civil trial, the fact that the judgment was recognized in a final and conclusive judgment on other civil and criminal cases related thereto, barring any special circumstance, shall constitute a flexible evidence, barring any special circumstance. However, in a case where it is deemed difficult to adopt a factual judgment in the final and conclusive judgment on the relevant civil and criminal case in light of other evidence submitted in the relevant civil trial, it may be rejected, and in such a case, it is not necessary to explain the specific reasons for the rejection thereof in a single case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da49370, Mar. 14, 1997). In this case, there is no other evidence for rejecting the facts recognized in the previous judgment on the criminal case, and barring any special circumstance, it is reasonable to deem Defendant C used the Plaintiff as stated in the previous judgment

Therefore, Defendant C is therefore the instant case.