2018 Ghana 4528 Damages

A

1. B

2. C

3. D;

June 27, 2018

July 25, 2018

1. The Plaintiff:

A. The Defendants jointly pay 18,00,000 won and the amount calculated by applying 5% per annum from March 12, 2016 to July 25, 2018, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment; and

B. Defendant D shall pay 2,00,000 won and the amount calculated by applying 5% per annum from March 12, 2016 to July 25, 2018, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 90% is assessed against the Defendants, and the remainder is assessed against the Plaintiff.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff 60 million won with 5% interest per annum from March 12, 2016 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 12, 2016, at around 02:50, the Defendants discovered the Plaintiff who was locked under the influence of alcohol in Fpenture located in Pyeongtaek-gun, Gyeonggi-do. Defendant B conspired with the Plaintiff’s part on the Plaintiff’s ship and puts the Plaintiff’s part on the part of the ship by carrying the Plaintiff’s surface on his hand. Defendant D, while photographing the mobile phone with her hand, fluencing the Plaintiff’s conspiracy and part on the part of the ship. Defendant D, while shooting the cell phone with her hand, she left the Plaintiff’s bar and her part on the part of the ship until she seen the Plaintiff’s bar and her part on the lower part, and she should put the Plaintiff’s bar and her part on the part of the ship in the lower part until she seen the Plaintiff’s mouth and her part on the part of the ship. Defendant B, “I cannot resist, she did so, she did so, and she did so.”

B. Defendant D photographed the Plaintiff’s body against his will by using a cell phone camera function, which had been in possession of a fluoral part of the Plaintiff’s fluoral part of the Plaintiff’s fluoral part and fluoral part, which Defendant B and C had been under influence of alcohol (hereinafter “the act of photographing the Plaintiff’s body”) at the above date, time and place (hereinafter “the act of photographing the camera use”).

C. On September 15, 2017, the Defendants: Seoul High Court 2017No1525 decided on September 15, 2017 (the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Special Indecent Act on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes) and violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Special Indecent Act on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes) and Defendant D’s act of joint indecent act by force in this case and Defendant D’s act of photographing the camera in this case were all convicted, and were sentenced to a stay of two years and forty hours of imprisonment and an order to attend a lecture for the treatment of sexual assault on November 30, 2017. The above judgment became final and conclusive as is.

D. In the above criminal case, "the defendant suffered from an unexploitive injury in the number of days of treatment which requires continuous treatment to the plaintiff due to the act of joint indecent act in this case," the judgment of innocence became final and conclusive on the ground that "The defendant's injury in the contact with the plaintiff is minor and so there is no obstacle to natural recovery and daily life even if he does not receive treatment," and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to deem the above situation as injury. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone does not necessarily mean that the plaintiff was caused by the act of joint indecent act in this case, even if the injury in stress is recognized, the fact that the act of the joint indecent act in this case was not proven without any reasonable doubt."

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

1) According to the above facts, the Defendants’ act of joint indecent act in this case and Defendant D’s act of photographing the camera in this case constitutes a tort against the Plaintiff, and it is apparent that the Plaintiff suffered severe mental distress. As such, the Defendants jointly have a duty to pay consolation money for mental distress incurred by the Plaintiff in relation to the act of joint indecent act in this case.

2) The Plaintiff alleged to the effect that “Defendant B and C shall bear the joint responsibility for Defendant D’s act of using the instant camera,” but the submitted evidence alone is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

B. Scope of liability for damages

In full view of all the circumstances, such as the details of the Defendants’ tort committed in the above facts and pleadings, the background leading up to the tort, the degree of damages suffered by the Plaintiff, the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, and the age of the Plaintiff and the Defendants, the amount of consolation money to be jointly borne by the Defendants in relation to the joint indecent act of this case shall be KRW 18,00,000, and the amount of consolation money to be borne by Defendant D in relation to the act of taking pictures using the camera of this case shall be KRW 2

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the solatium 18,00,000 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from March 12, 2016, which is the date of this judgment, to July 25, 2018, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is the date of the judgment of this case, which is deemed reasonable for the Defendants to resist the scope of their obligations. Defendant D is obligated to pay the solatium 2,00,000 won per annum from March 12, 2016 to July 25, 2018, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Park Jong-soo