손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was first known of the Defendant around November 2015, and the Defendant actively attempted to be hedging with a woman-friendly group (C) who returned to Korea at the time, and led to a school system premised on marriage, such as: (a) around June 2016, the Plaintiff 201, and (b) around three and five days of Singapore travel.
In addition, even though the plaintiff became aware of the marriage between the defendant and C on November 2016 and notified the defendant of the objection, the defendant, around the end of December 2016, he completed the marriage report on June 29, 2018, where the defendant was married with C and without filing a report of marriage on November 2016. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 27217, Jun. 29, 2018>
The plaintiff believed that he/she would resume his/her school system with the plaintiff by arranging Eul and seeking to resume his/her school system from around that time to May 2018. On March 2017, the defendant unilaterally notified the defendant of his/her pregnancy that the plaintiff knew that he/she was pregnant and the plaintiff was aware that he/she was pregnant on May 2018.
As such, a series of acts, such as a long-term teaching system by deception and solicitation for pregnancy and abortion, by deceiving the defendant under the circumstance of marriage, constitute a tort that infringes on the plaintiff's personal rights and sexual self-determination, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money of KRW 30 million and delay damages to the plaintiff.
2. The judgment of the court below is not sufficient to acknowledge that the defendant violated the plaintiff's personality right and sexual self-determination right by entering the evidence Nos. 1-1 to 7, 1-2-1 to 10, 3-1 to 12, 4, 6, 7, 11, and 12-1 to 12, 3-1 to 4, 6, and 7, 11, and 12, and the examination result of the plaintiff himself, etc., under the circumstance of marriage, and soliciting abortion in the process, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
3. Conclusion.