beta
(영문) 울산지방법원 2020.07.16 2019가단121727

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff and C are the legal couple married on December 15, 1992.

On November 17, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for divorce, etc. against the Defendant and his/her spouse under the Ulsan Family Court 2017Dhap2189 (hereinafter “instant prior lawsuit”).

The cause of the claim against the defendant in the prior suit of this case is the claim for damages on the ground that the marital relationship between the plaintiff and C has ceased due to the act of the defendant and C.

B. On April 12, 2019, the Plaintiff withdrawn the lawsuit against C during the instant prior suit, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant constituted conciliation as indicated below (hereinafter “instant conciliation”).

(1) The defendant is in depth aware of the fact that the defendant caused a disturbance to the plaintiff's home due to the defendant's behavior.

(2) The defendant shall communicate with C after the vehicle.

Hayna promises that work will not be absolute.

(3) As a result, the Plaintiff and the Defendant have concluded all disputes arising from the instant case and live their own lives.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence A 1-1, Evidence A 4-4, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. On September 2019, the Plaintiff asserted that he was deceased on or around January 2018 by the Defendant and C, and that he was aware of various unlawful acts during the instant prior suit.

The marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant due to the illegal act of the plaintiff C and the defendant led to the failure.

Of the prior suit of this case, the Defendant tried to seek damages against the Plaintiff on a false basis.

C In this case against the Defendant, the Defendant recognized the act of incompetence with C in this court 2019 Ghana7050.

In this case, the Defendant’s assertion that the relationship with C is not a wrongful act is against the good faith principle.

The Defendant was liable to compensate the Plaintiff for mental suffering due to the above illegal acts committed by the Defendant.

B. The defendant's assertion.