위자료
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B’s KRW 15,00,000 and for this, KRW 5% per annum from December 21, 2016 to February 8, 2018.
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements No. 1 and No. 2-1 and No. 2 of the basic facts, the plaintiff has been living as a legal couple after completing the marriage report on Jan. 24, 1998, and has two children under his/her chain, and there is no counter-proof.
E filed a lawsuit of divorce, etc. against the Plaintiff on July 28, 2017, when the instant lawsuit was pending, with the Jeju District Court 2017Ma73, and the conciliation of divorce and division of property was concluded on November 16, 2017.
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Defendants asserted as follows: (a) even though they knew that E is the father-Nam, they committed unlawful acts with E; and (b) as such, the Plaintiff was unable to maintain a matrimonial relationship with E; and (c) the Plaintiff was suffering from mental impulses and pain. Therefore, the Defendants are liable to pay the Plaintiff a solatium amounting to KRW 2 million and damages for delay.
1) Defendant B’s unlawful act from November 2013 visited E as a customer, and came to end on June 2015, 2015. Defendant B, despite the Plaintiff’s words “E” to Defendant B, continued to go to go to Jeju and Busan, and continued to go to an inappropriate meeting with E. Around September 11, 2016. Defendant C’s improper act was sent to E along with E. From January 201, 2017 to July 2, 2015, Defendant C sent a daily contact with E, reported what kind of contact with each other, and sent a daily message at the latest.
Although the Plaintiff called Defendant C not to communicate with E on September 27, 2015, Defendant C continued to communicate with E by December 2015, Defendant C continued to communicate with E and continued to communicate with E.
3. Defendant D’s unlawful act was living together with E from 208 when the Plaintiff was staying in the United States to October 201, 201, which was the time of returning home, and continued to contact after the Plaintiff’s return.