Busan

Law Firm Doz.

Busan

Law Firm Doz.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. One-fifth of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

5% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment

D. The payment of any money is made.

A. On January 14, 2008, the Plaintiff and A reported marriage on January 14, 2008, but they reported divorce on February 13, 2017.

B. The defendant is a student of A's elementary school.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 and 15 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

With respect to the instant lawsuit claiming the materials on the grounds that the Defendant caused the failure of the marriage between the Plaintiff and A by committing an unlawful act with the Plaintiff, the Defendant asserts that the instant lawsuit is unlawful on the grounds that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and A on February 13, 2017.

Since there is no ground to view that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the action, the above argument by the Defendant is without merit without any need to examine any further.

3. Determination as to the cause of action

A person who commits an unlawful act with a spouse is liable for a tort where the marital relationship between the other party and the other party’s spouse becomes bankrupt, and the other party’s mental suffering is liable for a tort, and Article 840 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act includes a broad concept, including the adultery, which does not reach the common sense but does not follow the other party’s duty of mutual assistance (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Meu4095, Nov. 28, 2013).

In light of the following circumstances, the Defendant committed an unlawful act with A and thereby the failure of the marriage between the Plaintiff and A is recognized, when there is no dispute, or when considering the respective descriptions of the evidence Nos. 2, 3, 10, 11, and 13 as well as the overall purport of video and pleading Nos. 13. Accordingly, the Defendant is liable to pay consolation money to the Plaintiff.

Defendant and A came to know at around January 2014 at an elementary school alumni group, and thereafter A came to know.

On July 31, 2015, the relationship with the Defendant was deepened, such as purchasing a cooling house worth KRW 3 million to the Defendant. On August 2015, A’s elementary school copient 00 phone called to the Plaintiff and notified the Plaintiff that he/she was dead, and the Plaintiff asked the Defendant to find the relationship. Around August 2015, 2015, the Defendant asked him/her of the relationship.

3. After this hour, “A” is not absolute met to the Plaintiff. It would pay consolation money of KRW 150,000,000 to the Plaintiff.” However, on August 1, 2016, A sent out on August 13, 2016, and sent a trip to the Defendant for 2-day one-day travel along with the two-day travel. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 27470, Aug. 13, 2016; Presidential Decree No. 27575, Aug. 8, 2016>

20. 03: around 00, at around 00, the defendant was found to be both the defendant and the plaintiff at the defendant's residence.

In addition, the amount of consolation money shall be determined as KRW 10 million, taking into consideration all the circumstances revealed in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the marital life and distress of the Plaintiff and A, family relationship, degree and period of misconduct, and agreement at the time of divorce between the Plaintiff and A.

Therefore, from September 1, 2016, the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff with respect to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act until June 27, 2017, which is the sentencing date of this case, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

4. Judgment on the defendant's defense for repayment

A. The defendant's assertion

As the Defendant’s joint and several liability joint and several liability joint and several liability, A agreed to pay the solatium of KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff, and accordingly, paid KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s obligation was extinguished.

B. Determination

According to the purport of the evidence Nos. 15, 17, and 20 and the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff prepared a written statement to the court that, on December 27, 2016, the Plaintiff received 30 million won as consolation money, and at the same time applies for divorce with the court. The Plaintiff paid 30 million won to the Plaintiff on the same day.

However, in consideration of the following circumstances acknowledged by the respective descriptions of Gap evidence 17, 18, and Eul evidence 15 and the purport of the entire pleadings, that is, each of the instant statements was made by means of the plaintiff's signature and seal on the draft prepared and made by Gap; the plaintiff lent KRW 100 million to Park 00, the president of the company (****** industry) to which A was present; and another statement was written to the effect that he renounced the above loan claim; and the above statement was signed and sealed as a witness of 00 in each of the instant statements, it is reasonable to view that even if each of the instant statements was written as consolation money, it is difficult to view that it is limited to consolation money within a legal meaning, and it is also included in the meaning of division of property.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff was paid 30 million won as consolation money from A is without merit.

5. Conclusion

Plaintiff Aza* Claim * within the extent of recognition* within the extent of recognition**** Reasons* in *, and the remainder is dismissed for lack of good cause.