2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, 60% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

D. The sum of the calculated amounts is paid.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff was the maximum 00 couple and the legal couple. Since the lastO committed an unlawful act with the defendant and thereby caused the plaintiff to have a divorce since the marital relationship between the plaintiff and the maximum 00 was not reached, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for mental damage caused by the plaintiff's unlawful act.

B. The defendant's assertion

The Defendant’s assertion is without merit, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s verbal abuse, assault, etc. against the maximum 00 persons that led to the failure of the marital relationship between the Plaintiff and the maximum 00, even though there was a fact that the Defendant had been in her largest 00 and 3 times. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

2. Determination:

A. Facts of recognition

(1) The plaintiff and maximum 00 were legally married couples who completed the marriage report on December 15, 1993.

(2) From April 2007, the maximum 00 was employed as a public worker by the working groups in Ulsan Metropolitan City, and the defendant was in charge of the management of public workers.

(3) The Defendant and MaO shall: (a) from around 15 to 16:45 on December 5, 2010; (b) from around 15 to around 16:00 Maul-gun, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, and (c) from around 16:0 on December 18, 200, (b) Ulsan-gu located at around 500 Ulsan-gu, ** 22:0 on December 20 of the same month; (c) from around 00 to about 00, Ulsan-gu located at Ulsan-22:0 on December 20 of the same month - 200.

(4) 2010. 12. 22. 2010 - - The Plaintiff came to be Madju with the Defendant and the lowest 00 coming from the Madel.

(5) Since then, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant and the MaO on the charge of adultery, and during the investigation process, the MaO reversed it later, and the Defendant denied the charge that he was unable to have sexual intercourse with the Defendant prior to the generation of donations, and subsequently, was subject to a non-prosecution disposition by the Ulsan District Prosecutors' Office on February 18, 201, on the ground that both the Defendant and the Magsan District Prosecutors' Office were indicted on the grounds of the lack of evidence.

(6) On March 12, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the largest 00 U.S. District Court 2010Ddan1314 divorce, etc., and the Plaintiff and the largest OO is divorced from the said court. The maximum 00 is paid to the Plaintiff KRW 25 million along with the transfer of lease deposit claims under the name of property division, consolation money, child support, etc., and the transfer under the name of the policyholder and beneficiary. The decision was confirmed on April 13, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 11 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Determination

(1) The "illegal act, which is a judicial divorce ground under Article 840 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Act, should be understood as a wider concept including any fraudulent act that is deemed not to be faithful to the husband's duty of mutual assistance even though it was not committed in common (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Meu938, Apr. 9, 1993). According to the above facts of recognition, it cannot be readily concluded that the defendant and the last 00 persons have livered. However, it is sufficient to deem that the last O had committed an illegal act in which the husband and the wife failed to fulfill their duty of mutual assistance by investing in the cartel over three occasions as above with the defendant, and the marital relationship between the plaintiff and the last 00 persons is likely to result in the failure.

(2) As to this, the defendant asserts that verbal abuse against the maximum 00 of the plaintiff, and assault against the plaintiff is the main cause of the failure of the marriage, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

(3) Since it can be sufficiently recognized that the plaintiff suffered from mental distress due to the failure of the marriage between the defendant and the defendant due to the last 00 misconduct, the defendant is obligated to avoid the plaintiff's damage. As to the specific amount of consolation money, all the circumstances shown in the arguments of this case, including the plaintiff and the maximum 00 person period, the circumstances and degree of the act, the circumstance and degree of the act, and the circumstance of the subsequent marriage dissolution, etc., shall be determined as KRW 20 million in consideration of all the circumstances shown in the arguments of this case.

Therefore, the defendant filed a divorce lawsuit against the plaintiff 20 million won as consolation money and the plaintiff's decision to recommend reconciliation was confirmed due to the plaintiff's improper act of the defendant and the last 00, and the plaintiff's decision to recommend reconciliation was made, and the plaintiff and the last 00 marriage relationship with the plaintiff from April 13, 2012 caused the complete failure of the marriage between the plaintiff and the last 00 (the beginning date of the late payment damages is determined as of December 22, 2010 - the plaintiff and the last 00 - the beginning date of the late payment damages was determined as of December 22, 2010, but it is difficult to readily conclude that the marriage between the plaintiff and the last 00 has been broken down immediately on its own). It is reasonable to dispute about the existence and scope of the obligation of the defendant until April 3, 2014, which is the date of the decision of this case, to be determined by the Civil Act.

5% per annum and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment shall be liable to pay damages for delay calculated by the rate of 5% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

3. Conclusion

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