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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. On April 4, 2011, the Defendant, having a legal spouse, first attended with each other, and terminated the relationship with the Defendant’s separate notice around July 2, 2013.

B. On September 2, 2013, the Plaintiff submitted to the National Human Rights Commission of the Republic of Korea a written application for an inhumanity relationship with the Defendant, who is an occupation soldier, to the lower court, and the Defendant was subject to disciplinary action accordingly.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entries and images of Gap evidence 1 through 3 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. As the Plaintiff’s primary cause of claim, the Plaintiff and the Defendant are two years between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. The Defendant agreed to pay KRW 150 million to the Plaintiff on August 5, 2013 as compensation for mental damage suffered by the Plaintiff due to the Defendant’s unilateral decision. As such, the Defendant is obliged to pay KRW 150 million to the Plaintiff.

In a preliminary claim, it was true that the Plaintiff and the Defendant had attended the school by free will. However, even though the Defendant took the same attitude as continuing the school system since the school system, and received material and mental support from the Plaintiff, unilaterally notified the Plaintiff about July 2, 2013, and the Plaintiff had suffered severe mental and physical pain, and such decision notice was unlawful as impairing the Plaintiff’s trust formed by the Defendant’s prior action. Thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 80 million with compensation for mental damage suffered by the Plaintiff due to the unilateral decision notice.

B. As to the Defendant’s primary cause of claim, the Defendant notified the Defendant of his intention to liquidate the relationship with the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s side threatened the Defendant to “be off military uniforms and know to his family,” and the Defendant did not take any attitude to refuse to correct the Plaintiff’s primary cause of claim in telephone communications, etc. in order to smoothly resolve the time.