Busan Address

Law Firm Doz.

EB

Address Changwon-si

Law Firm Doz.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. On December 19, 2001, the Plaintiff filed a marriage report with regularCC.

B. The U.S. and the Defendant are students in the same elementary school, and there is a gap between elementary school and the alumni group at an elementary school.

C. The Plaintiff installed a tape recorder at regularCC’s car during the suspicion of the appearance of regularCC, and on April 10, 2015: 03:03:08:56, the Defendant recorded conversations between regularCC and the pertinent car, and among which, the Defendant should delete the recording of vehicle black boxes, the conversations sent and sent by regularCC and the Defendant and the conversation suggesting sexual relations.

D. Around April 11, 2015, on the following day, JeongCC was aware of the Plaintiff, who had been accommodated in the Moel with a male, but failed to verify the identity of the male.

E. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking divorce, etc. against JeongCC (the Busan Family Court 2015ddan6704). In the instant case, the Plaintiff and JeongCC determined on March 9, 2016 that the Plaintiff and JeongCC would have divorced, and the said decision became final and conclusive on March 9, 2016.

[Grounds for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 2, 3, 5, and 7 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

"Unlawful conduct of a spouse" under Article 840 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Act is a more broad concept, including the adultery, and includes a single illegal conduct that does not reach the adultery but does not conform to the husband's duty of mutual assistance. Whether a spouse is an unlawful conduct or not should be assessed in consideration of the degree and situation of each specific case (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Meu4095, Nov. 28, 2013).

According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to see that Jung-CC committed an unlawful act in violation of the husband’s duty of well-being, and it was involved in such unlawful act of Jung-CC even though it was aware of the spouse’s existence. As such, the Defendant is obligated to do so as a tort in money or in good faith.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that at the time when the defendant met, the marital relationship between the plaintiff and JungCC was broken down and could not be recovered. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the defendant's above assertion, and there is no reason.

Furthermore, the amount of consolation money to be paid by the Defendant is reasonable to determine the amount of consolation money to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff as KRW 15 million in consideration of various circumstances shown in the pleadings of the instant case, such as: (a) the background and degree of the commission of the act set forth by the Defendant and JungCC; (b) the marriage period and the process of marital life between the Plaintiff and JungCC; and (c) the relationship between the Plaintiff and JungCC.

Therefore, from August 27, 2015, the day following the day on which the principal copy of the complaint of this case, the Defendant sought against the Plaintiff with respect to KRW 15 million, the Defendant is obligated to pay late-payment damages calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act until April 19, 2016, which is the date of the pronouncement of this case, until April 19, 2016, and 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are not reasonable.