The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

1. The court's explanation of this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment by this court under paragraph (2) of this Article, thereby citing this case as is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination by this Court

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff filed a complaint several times, and the public prosecutor in charge of the case filed the complaint did not investigate B properly as follows, but did not prosecute B by disregarding the police’s investigation records or destroying evidence. If the public prosecutor indicted B after investigating B properly, the Plaintiff could have been exempted from the obligation to pay the construction cost by following the previous final and conclusive judgment through a retrial lawsuit against B. Thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages arising from the Defendant’s unlawful performance of duties and non-prosecution disposition.

1) In the case where the plaintiff filed a complaint against B by fraud, perjury, andless accusation in around 200, the public prosecutor C belonging to the Seoul Eastern District Public Prosecutor's Office (Seoul District Public Prosecutor's Dong District Public Prosecutor's Office No. 2000-type No. 7036) on April 24, 2000. The plaintiff filed a complaint, but the plaintiff was decided to close the public inspection on July 24, 2003. These dispositions were unlawful by the destruction of evidence and biased investigation by the prosecutor. 2) After which the plaintiff filed a complaint against B, the D public prosecutor belonging to the Seoul East District Public Prosecutor's Office did not properly investigate the witness, but neglected the police's investigation opinion on April 1, 2002 (Seoul District Public Prosecutor's Dong District Public Prosecutor's Office No. 2002-type No. 6855 of the Seoul District Public Prosecutor's Office). This constitutes abuse of authority and abuse of duty.

3) In a case where the Plaintiff filed a complaint against B as a crime without accusation in around 2010, the prosecutor of the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office affiliated with the Sungnam District Prosecutors’ Office was subject to a disposition that was unsuspected for reasons of lack of evidence (No. 2010 type No. 30207, Nov. 19, 2010).