beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.05.15 2018가단5077483

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,00,000 for the Plaintiff and the following: 5% per annum from June 23, 2018 to May 15, 2019.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 2016, the Plaintiff, as an unmarried female employee in 1990, began to meet the Defendant who was a policeman in 1982, but suspended the horse education system on September 2016.

B. On August 2016, the Plaintiff was pregnant while having established a sex relationship with the Defendant, and received a surgery of abortion around August 2016.

C. The defendant is a person who has a spouse who completed a marriage report with C on July 7, 2009.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant concealeds his father's father's father's father's father's father's son's father's father's father's son's father's father's father's father'

Therefore, since the defendant deceivings the plaintiff and caused mental damage as above, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money of KRW 50 million and delay damages to the plaintiff.

B. Determination 1) The following circumstances revealed in Gap evidence 2, 3, and 9 and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, the defendant's case of claiming consolation money against the plaintiff with the defendant's spouse knowing the defendant's external appearance at the latest, (in Changwon District Court 2016Da114937, which is the defendant's first time, and in the case of the plaintiff's first time, C was unaware of the fact that the defendant was his father's father D, while the plaintiff's father was in alliance with the plaintiff, and it is very exceptional to the plaintiff's father's father knowing that he is his father's father's father is his father. In light of the above, it is reasonable to view that the defendant deceiving the plaintiff to reach gender relationship, and it is very important to determine whether the other party is a married woman, and therefore, the defendant's act of deception is not an intentional moral issue but a moral self-determination.