1. As to the Plaintiff A’s KRW 3,00,000, and KRW 12,000,000 to Plaintiff B, and each of the said money from June 4, 2012 to June 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff B is the disabled of the third grade intellectual disability, and the plaintiff A is the mother of the plaintiff B.

B. Around September 201, the Defendant sent the chest of Plaintiff B (the age of 22 at that time) to the E drainage area located in Haan-gun, Haan-gun, Haan-gun, Haan-gun, and the Defendant committed indecent act by force by force by force by force on several occasions.

C. At around 17:00 on June 4, 2012, the Defendant sent the chest of Plaintiff B (the age of 22 at that time) to the outside male toilet of the G principal meeting located in the Haannam-gun F, Gyeongnam-gun, and made indecent act by compulsion by force on the part of Plaintiff B’s sexual organ several occasions.

On January 8, 2014, the Defendant was convicted of two years and six months of imprisonment or three years of suspended execution due to a violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (rape, etc. against Disabled Persons) due to a criminal fact described in paragraph (3).

(Seoul District Court Msan Branch 2013Gohap60) The above judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 and 2 evidence

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the facts acknowledged as above, it is clear in light of the empirical rule that the defendant's act of indecent act by compulsion of the defendant would have suffered from serious mental pain to the plaintiff A, as well as the victim B, who lives together with the plaintiff B. Thus, the defendant is obligated to do so in monetaryly against the plaintiffs' mental suffering and impulse.

The Defendant asserts to the effect that, since the Plaintiff did not force the indecent act by compulsion, the tort liability does not exist.

In a civil trial, even if it is not bound by the fact-finding of a criminal trial, the fact that the criminal trial already finalized on the same factual basis is material evidence, and thus, it cannot be recognized that there is no special circumstance where it is difficult to adopt the fact-finding of a criminal trial in light of other evidence submitted in the civil trial.

Supreme Court Decision 97Da24276 delivered on September 30, 1997.