
Cheongju District Court ruled in favor of some of the plaintiffs in the damages claim filed by the victim student.
The Cheongju District Court ruled that the parents of A, a middle school student who forcibly molested and sexually harassed a female student in his class for several months, must compensate the victim about 18 million won.
AI-generated summary
Middle school student A sent sexual messages to classmate B and forcibly molested her body parts between March and May of last year.
(Cheongju = Yonhap News) Reporter Seongmin Lee = A court ruling was made on behalf of a middle school student who forcibly molested and sexually harassed a female student in his class for several months in the classroom, ordering the parents to compensate the victim about 18 million won.
According to the legal community on the 5th, Chief Judge Ju-hyeon Lee of the Civil Division 6 of the Cheongju District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff in a lawsuit claiming 35 million won in damages filed by the victim against the parents of student A, saying, "The defendants must compensate the plaintiff about 18 million won."
From March to May of last year, middle school student A sent sexual messages to classmate B through social networking services (SNS), saying things like “I want to touch your body parts” and “become a sex slave.”
Additionally, during this period, he forcibly touched Ms. B's body parts several times in the classroom and hallways.
Because of this, Ms. B was diagnosed with depression and received psychiatric treatment.
Chief Judge Lee ruled, "The defendants had a duty to protect and supervise Mr. A, including proper sex education, and continued to provide him with daily guidance and advice. However, they were negligent in neglecting this duty. Since this negligence became the cause of the tort, the defendants, as tortfeasors, are responsible for compensating the damages suffered by the plaintiff."
He then ordered, “Taking into account various circumstances, including the circumstances leading up to this incident, the content of the sexual messages, and the manner in which the forcible molestation took place, it is appropriate to set the alimony at 12 million won,” adding, “The defendants must also compensate Ms. B for up to 6.7 million won in psychiatric treatment expenses.”

The Busan District Court decided to substitute mediation for the Busan Port Authority and the business operator, who are in a legal dispute over the '3.3m level gap' of the pedestrian deck of the Busan Port North Port Complex Transfer Center.

The Seoul Administrative Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim, ruling that Gangdong-gu Office's decision to publish the list of daycare centers A, which illegally received 100 million won in subsidies and falsely registered children and child care teachers, was lawful. The court ruled that oral notice was legal because prior notice during the investigation could lead to destruction of evidence.

The Serious Crimes Investigation Office, which celebrated its first holiday immediately after its launch, sent some executives and employees to work, reorganized administrative procedures, and began preparations for a full-scale investigation. With the capacity starting at 66%, attention is focused on the transfer of the case to the Public Prosecution Office and the conclusion of the 'No. 1 investigation'.

In a lawsuit filed by Mr. A, who applied for payment of inheritance tax, against the head of the Seocho Tax Office, the Seoul Administrative Court ruled that the plaintiff lost the case, ruling that the tax authority's refusal that Company B's unlisted stocks were unsuitable for management and disposal due to a deficit that continued for two years was legal.

From January to June of this year, in courts across the country, personal rehabilitation showed a difference of up to 4.6 times in processing time, with 2.9 months at Chuncheon District Court and 12 to 13.2 months at Daegu and Uijeongbu District Courts, and personal bankruptcy showed a gap of about 2.8 times, with 1.8 months at Busan Rehabilitation Court and 5.1 months at Daejeon Rehabilitation Court. In corporate rehabilitation and bankruptcy, a difference of up to 4.1 times was confirmed between the Suwon Rehabilitation Court and the Jeju District Court.

The Supreme Court ruled that it cannot be concluded that the debtor re-applied for an unfair purpose based solely on the experience of having several personal rehabilitation applications rejected or abolished in the past. It was stated that when reapplying, the circumstances of the past decision, the status of the creditor's claim recovery, and changes in the debtor's assets must be comprehensively reviewed.