The Defendants jointly and severally share KRW 20,000,000 to Plaintiff A, and KRW 2,00,000,000 for each of them to Plaintiff B and C, and each of them on March 2, 2019.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Defendant D became aware of the Plaintiff (GG) through the Pestonbuk at the end of 2016, and provided teaching services.

At the time, the defendant D knew that the plaintiff A was under 13 years of age as the sixth-year student of an elementary school.

B. From March 27, 2017 to April 2017, Defendant D committed an indecent act, such as inserting a sexual intercourse with Plaintiff A three times, and inserting her hand into the clothes of Plaintiff A around the summer in 2017.

C. On June 19, 2020, Defendant D was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for two years and six months, suspended execution for four years, and taking part in sexual assault therapy on the grounds of the crime related to the preceding paragraph and the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (a minor under thirteen years of age) in the Suwon District Court’s Ansan Branch (2020, 85).

Although the prosecutor appealed against the above judgment, the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2020No429) dismissed the appeal, and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

E. Defendant E and F are the parents of Defendant D, and Plaintiff B and C are the parents of Plaintiff A.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 10 evidence, significant facts in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the fact of recognition as above, the Plaintiff A was 12 years old at the time of the instant case, and it was difficult for the Plaintiff A to exercise the right to sexual self-determination in a genuine sense.

Defendant D’s act constitutes a tort that interferes with the free decision-making of Plaintiff A’s sexual self-determination and infringes on the right to sexual self-determination, and distorted the concept of non-established sexuality of Plaintiff A.

Plaintiff

Since it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff B and C, who is his parent, suffered from mental suffering due to the illegal acts committed by defendant D, there is a duty to pay for such damage in money.

Although the plaintiffs asserted that Defendant D committed a tort of attempted rape against Plaintiff A even around February 2019, the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs alone is insufficient to recognize it.