Busan Address

Attorney Lee Do-young

Busan Address

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

A. On September 25, 1997, the Plaintiff is a married couple who completed the marriage report at △△△ and △△△△, and has two children among them.

B. The Plaintiff and the △△△△△△ continued disputes due to the economic issues during the marriage period, the parenting of children, etc., and as the marriage period expires, the infertility and conflict between the two parties are deepened.

C. In addition, the Plaintiff’s thought that the above problems have not been resolved but rather deteriorated, and that maintaining the marriage relationship with the Defendant was not meaningful, and the Plaintiff came to become a friendly family member on February 21, 2015, and the two children were to be dismissed.

D. After that, the Plaintiff and Jeong △△△△△ had a fluorial relationship with the Plaintiff, and there was a great discussion about the solatium, consolation money, child support, etc. On May 2015, △△△△△△ sold Samdo apartment housing located in the Yandong-dong, Busan, the residence of which was located, and purchased the studio located in the Dong-dong, Busan, the Busan, and paid KRW 1.5 million to the Plaintiff as child support.

E. Around July 2015, △△△△ became aware of the Defendant who is engaged in real estate brokerage business. At that time, △△△△ at that time deemed that the Defendant was divorced from the Plaintiff.

F. The Plaintiff’s children were able to stay in the room at which △△△△△ was living, using the summer school period. However, on August 9, 2015, the Defendant aided the Plaintiff’s children’s shopping mall upon the Plaintiff’s request of △△△△△ on the basis of the Plaintiff’s request, and her her her her her son and her son and her son and her son and son were playing in the room at the center, and the water play facilities also.

G. On August 10, 2015, the Plaintiff, who became aware of such a fact, told the Defendant that he did not divorce with △△△△△△, while in the currency with the Defendant, and that the Defendant would be able to know △△△△△△.

H. As from August 15, 2015, the Defendant and the regular △△△△△△△, respectively, carried out their home in one beds, with each other.

(i) On August 31, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a claim suit, including divorce, against △△△△, (the Busan Family Court 2015 dan 13030, hereinafter “instant divorce suit”).

(j) After that, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a dispute, and the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on November 30, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 6 (including Serial number, e.g., e., e., e., d.), Eul evidence 1 to 16, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Parties’ assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is responsible for compensating the plaintiff for the mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff, since he knew that △△△△ was the spouse, and the defendant's improper act led to the failure of the marriage between the plaintiff and △△△△△ (hereinafter "the marriage relationship of this case").

In regard to this, the Defendant and the △△△△△ did not have committed a wrongful act, and even if they were to have committed a wrongful act, the instant marriage was practically failed before the Defendant met the △△△△, and thus, there was no causation between the Defendant’s wrongful act and the failure of the marriage of this case, and further, the △△△△△△ was aware of the fact that the △△△△△ was already divorced at the time of the delivery of the △△△△△. The judgment on March 3.

According to the above facts, the Defendant and the △△△△△△ appears to have committed an unlawful act from August 15, 2015.

However, in order to recognize the defendant's liability for damages caused by the failure of the marriage of this case, the causal relationship between the defendant's wrongful act and the failure of the marriage of this case

However, according to the facts found earlier and the evidence revealed earlier, the Plaintiff and the regular △△△△△△ was selected from February 21, 2015, and there were discussions on the divorce between the two parties, the division of property premised on divorce, and the child support, etc., while the Plaintiff did not seem to have made a serious effort to recover the marital relationship between the two parties when filing a divorce lawsuit in this case, and the Defendant and the regular △△△△△△△△△△△△ was first known around July 2015, and the Defendant became aware of the fact that the Plaintiff and the regular △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ was not divorced. In this case, it was only reasonable to view that the Plaintiff had become aware of the fact that there was a wrongful act between the Defendant and the regular △△△△△△△△△△△△△△ on August 31, 2015.

Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the instant marital relationship has reached a failure due to the Defendant’s wrongful act, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.