Busan Address

Busan District Court

Attorney Lee Do-young

Busan Address

Busan District Court

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

가 . 원고는 2012 . 4 . 경 스마트폰 " HI THERE " 이라는 어플리케이션을 통해 피고 ( 피고 는 당시 자신의 이름을 자신의 딸인 ' 구00 ' 로 사칭함 ) 를 알게 되었고 , 그 후 연인관계 로 발전하면서 성관계를 가졌으며 , 피고와 동거생활을 하던 중 피고가 ' 구△△ ( 추후 '박▲▲ ' 으로 개명 ) 을 임신하여 피고는 2013 . 3 . 21 . 구△△을 출산하였다 .

B. (1) However, while the defendant reported the marriage with B/L on July 25, 2005 to the former B/L and had a sexual intercourse with the former 0 (2005 students) and had a sexual intercourse with the latter on December 15, 2008, he was given birth on December 15, 2008. After he became aware of the plaintiff as described in the above A., he was living together with the plaintiff by making use of the difference in the former B/L for a long time. The defendant did not notify the plaintiff of this fact (such as the fact that he was married, the fact that there was two children, etc.), and the defendant was registered on the family register only as the defendant's birth since the former △△△ was born.

(2) The former B/L B/L filed a lawsuit against the Defendant and the Plaintiff for divorce and consolation money against the Defendant and the Plaintiff as the other party to the Busan Family Court, claiming the Plaintiff to have parental authority over the Guus, and claiming the Plaintiff for designation of the person having parental authority over the Guus, and claiming consolation money on the ground of an unlawful act with the Defendant. The above court is divorced from the former B/L on March 23, 2016. The Defendant would pay to B/L the former B/L for consolation money in KRW 30,000,000 as consolation money and the delay damages therefor. The Defendant would designate B/L as the former B/L for designating B/L as the person with parental authority and the career of the former 0. The above judgment was finalized on April 20, 2016.

C. On January 7, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant came to show a common opinion among the family members for marriage. At the time, the Defendant introduced the third party (former ***) called “former * * * * * ’ as the father’s father’) who brought up the Defendant (the actual birth father * * * * * ) and the Defendant (the actual birth father * * *) on March 8, 2015, the said third party promised a marriage ceremony to the hotel hotel to be provided with a tourist hotel to be provided with the same, and the down payment was also made to the Plaintiff.

D. However, the Defendant was passive in the preparation for marriage with the Plaintiff and engaged in actions, such as changing horses from time to time, and the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the Defendant did not make preparations for marriage at all in the process of asking the above wedding hall and the trading shop, etc., and that the Plaintiff got aware of the fact that the Defendant was unaware of the names of 00 her her her her her son and her son and her son, and that the her son and her son were making false statements about the above family relationship

E. On February 24, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant on the grounds that he/she was aware of the family relationship, etc. against the Defendant, and obtained money from the Defendant under preception of marriage. On March 2, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit, such as a claim for damages of the instant case.

F. On November 4, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and two months for a crime, such as false sales writing on the opening of smartphone display room, and obtained money by deceiving victims to report and communicate,” and was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a case of fraud of 2015No250 in the District Court, 2015No250 in the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, and 2015No2561 in the said case, on November 12, 2015;

G. On March 23, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for confirmation of existence of the natural father-child relationship with the Busan Family Court of Law No. 2015 D and 201202 against the former △△△△△△△△△△△△△△, and subsequently designated the Plaintiff as a person with parental authority and a custodian of the former △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ on March 23, 20

[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence Nos. 1 through 12, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination

1) According to the above facts of recognition and the evidence adopted earlier, it seems that the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to establish a matrimonial relationship with the intent to establish a valid marriage in the future, and such relationship was actually broken down at the time when the plaintiff filed a criminal complaint against the defendant on February 2, 2015, and the complaint of this case, which entered the indication of dissolution of matrimonial relationship with the defendant, was delivered to the defendant on March 2015. The cancellation of the above matrimonial relationship belongs to all facts, such as his/her marriage status and two children, his/her name, parents, and the process of preparation for marriage, and it is reasonable to view that the defendant was mainly responsible for the defendant who made it difficult to establish a matrimonial relationship itself by deceiving the plaintiff and making it difficult for him/her to establish a matrimonial relationship, such as inducing the plaintiff and committing unlawful acts such as the above fraud.

Since it is clear from the experience that the above matrimonial engagement was cancelled as above that the plaintiff suffered mental pain, the defendant is obligated to do so in monetaryly. Thus, considering the age of the plaintiff and the defendant, the background leading up to the reversal of the matrimonial engagement between the plaintiff and the defendant, the background leading up to the dissolution of the matrimonial engagement, the degree of liability for the dissolution of the matrimonial engagement, the status of both parties' property, and other various circumstances shown in the argument in this case, it is reasonable to determine the amount of consolation money that the defendant would pay to the plaintiff at KRW 20,00,000.

2) Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from May 10, 2016 to the date of full payment, as sought by the Plaintiff, after the date of dissolution of the matrimonial engagement with respect to 20,000,000 won as consolation money.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.