2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

C. It shall pay 15% interest per annum from the date of full payment to the date of full payment.

A. The plaintiff and the defendant reported their marriage on April 13, 1981, and two children were born.

B. On December 2012, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant asserted that they were married to his father’s marriage, and thereafter, they began to move to the court. The Plaintiff doubtful the Defendant’s external appearance after the Defendant was traveling to the Gyeong-gu and Jeju-do on December 2012, and the relationship between two people became worse.

C. From December 2014, the Defendant conspiredd with Park 00 from around 2014, and requested the Plaintiff to divorce from around March 2015, but the Plaintiff rejected the divorce.

D. From August 10, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) entered into an agreement (from August 10, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (b) to transfer the ownership of an apartment (from the next day to the next day) located in the Seo-gu, Busan (hereinafter referred to as the “instant apartment”) to the Plaintiff in order to live with another woman; (c) from August 4, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant were certified as a deed signed by a private person; and (d) around that time, the Defendant lived with the Plaintiff at the house of 00.

E. On October 21, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for divorce, division of property, and consolation money against 00 (the Busan Family Court 2015dhap201797). On June 29, 2017, the above court recognized that the Defendant and her Park 00 caused the principal cause of the misconduct, and the Defendant’s marital relationship was broken down. The Plaintiff, by preparing the instant agreement, expressed his/her intention of ex post letter or prior consent on the misconduct between the Defendant and her 00, and in accordance with the instant agreement, rejected the Defendant’s assertion that “the payment of consolation money has been completed by transferring the instant real estate to the Plaintiff,” and ordered her 00 consolation money to pay consolation money with KRW 20 million and delay damages.

F. The Plaintiff appealed against the above judgment, and argued that the apartment of this case should be excluded from the property division, since it was donated as consolation money.

However, the above court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion on the ground that there is a lack of evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff received a donation of the apartment of this case as a consolation money, aside from claiming consolation money for divorce against the Defendant. The above judgment of the appellate court became final and conclusive on January 3, 2018 due to the absence of both appeals.

G. around January 2018, Park 00 paid to the Plaintiff a solatium in accordance with the judgment of the first instance court.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence No. 1, 2. Board

A. According to the above facts, the defendant's obligation to pay consolation money (1) was created, and the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant was broken down as the principal cause of the illegal act committed by the defendant and the defendant, and thus, the defendant, who is the responsible spouse, is obligated to pay consolation money to the plaintiff, except in special circumstances.

(2) The defendant asserts that the plaintiff prepared the agreement of this case, thereby consenting to or after the defendant's wrongful act, and that the defendant fulfilled all the obligation to pay consolation money by transferring the apartment of this case to the plaintiff in accordance with the agreement. However, as determined in the divorce lawsuit between the plaintiff and the defendant, it is not sufficient to recognize that the plaintiff consented to or made a good use of the defendant's improper act, and there is insufficient evidence to recognize that the plaintiff was donated the apartment of this case as consolation money. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

In addition, the Defendant asserts that even though the Plaintiff asserted that the apartment of this case was donated as consolation money from the Defendant in a divorce lawsuit, claiming consolation money is contrary to the principle of no speech and good faith. However, considering that the Plaintiff’s assertion of consolation money due to erroneous determination on the content of the agreement of this case, but did not accept it, the Plaintiff brought a separate lawsuit of consolation money as stated in the reasoning of the judgment that did not accept it, the Plaintiff’s assertion of consolation money was rejected, and the disadvantage suffered by the Plaintiff is much larger than the consolation money that the Plaintiff seeks as the lawsuit of this case, the Plaintiff’s claim of consolation money cannot be deemed as going against the principle of no speech and good faith.

Since the Defendant, in a divorce lawsuit with the Plaintiff, determined the amount of division of property by recognizing the Plaintiff’s contribution to the consolation money that the Plaintiff would receive, the Defendant asserts that separate claim for the payment of consolation money constitutes double claims. However, the written evidence Nos. 1, 1, 2, and 5 alone is insufficient to recognize that each court calculated the amount of division of property including the above materials that the Defendant would pay to the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(3) Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay consolation money to the plaintiff for the dissolution of marriage.

B. Amount of consolation money to be paid by the defendant

The consolation money to be borne by the defendant shall be determined at KRW 30 million, taking into consideration the various circumstances shown in the arguments in this case, such as the period of marriage of the plaintiff and the defendant, the background leading up to the marriage, the degree of fraudulent acts committed by the defendant and the defendant, and the attitude of the defendant after the fraudulent act was discovered.

However, since the obligation to pay consolation money to the plaintiff of 100 is the obligation to compensate for damages arising from the tort, the repayment of Park 00, which is the joint tortfeasor, is effective for the defendant, who is the other joint tortfeasor. Since Park 00 has already paid consolation money of 20 million won to the plaintiff, the defendant is liable to pay consolation money of 10 million won, which is the remaining amount, to the plaintiff.

C. Sub-committee

From January 9, 2018, the day following the delivery date of the complaint in this case, the defendant's appeal against the plaintiff as consolation money of KRW 10 million and its existence and scope is reasonable.

Until April 4, 2018, which is the date of this decision, the Civil Act is obligated to pay 5% per annum under the Civil Act and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim for consolation money shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as they are groundless.