1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 42,00,000 for Plaintiff A and KRW 8,000,000 for each of the said money to Plaintiff B and each of the said money from August 1, 2015 to August 20, 2020.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiffs are simplified women, and the defendant is the father and mother of the plaintiff A.

B. On November 23, 2018, the Defendant was sentenced to an employment restriction order, such as child and juvenile-related institutions, for four years and five years, by committing the crime of sexual intercourse or indecent act against the Plaintiff, including a minor under the age of 13 as indicated in the attached Table 13 against the Plaintiff A (hereinafter “instant crime”).

(2018No192) c) of a high military court.

All of the defendants and military prosecutors appealed against the above judgment (Supreme Court Decision 2018Do19471), but on April 3, 2019, the above judgment became final and conclusive after being sentenced to dismissal of appeal.

(hereinafter “Related criminal procedure”. 【Grounds for Recognition: Fact that there is no part of the dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 20, and purport of the whole pleadings】

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. 1) According to the above facts of recognition, the crime of this case constitutes a tort, and the fact that the plaintiffs suffered serious mental suffering is obvious in light of empirical rule, so the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiffs money pursuant to Article 751(1) of the Civil Act. 2) Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the defendant did not commit the crime of this case, "It is not absolute truth as to whether the defendant actually committed sexual intercourse or indecent act with the plaintiff A, on the ground that the defendant was guilty in criminal proceedings based on the plaintiff's false statement."

Even if the civil trial is not bound by the fact-finding of the criminal trial, the fact that the criminal trial already finalized on the same factual basis is a valuable evidence.

Unless there are special circumstances where it is difficult to adopt a judgment of facts in a criminal trial in light of other evidence submitted in the civil trial, the facts against this cannot be recognized.

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da9621 delivered on May 28, 1996, and Supreme Court Decision 97Da24276 delivered on September 30, 1997, etc.). Each of the above evidence is admitted.