beta
(영문) 창원지방법원 2015.07.15 2015나209

위자료 등

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff is his married life with C, who is his father and wife, caused disputes by the defendant's participation in the family life while living together with the plaintiff's husband and wife. Ultimately, the plaintiff and C are divorced, and the plaintiff are liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages of 52,50,000 won (2,000 won, 3,500,000 won, 16,500,000 won, 13,000,000 won, 4,000,000 won, 13,00,000,000 won, and damages for delay arising from the long-term civil criminal dispute. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages of 20,000,000 won and damages for delay.

C 2,00,000 won additionally borne by the Plaintiff by receiving a loan of KRW 30,00,000,000 in connection with the removal from the D-ground building in Changwon-si, Changwon-si (hereinafter “instant building”) in the name of Changwon-si, the deposit for lease was KRW 26,000,000,000.

B. 3,500,000 won which was not returned out of 17,000,000 won which the Plaintiff deposited under C’s name.

C. 10,000,000 won which the defendant received as half of 20,000 won due to the change of the insured status after the plaintiff joined the name C, but the insured was changed.

D. 3,500,000 won which is the 7,000,000 won which is the difference arising from the successful bid in 148,00,000, because the building of this case is 15,000 won because of a false loan certificate prepared by the defendant, even though the market price of this case was 15,00 won.

(e) 16,500,000 won, half of the deposit balance in Gyeongnam Bank under C;

F. 13,00,000 won per half of the deposit money for the instant building

G. 4,000,000 won borne by the Plaintiff with urban gas facilities and usage fees for the instant building

2. Each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 47 (including each number) constituted the defendant's tort as alleged by the plaintiff.

It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff suffered property or mental damage claimed by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.