Seoul

Attorney Lee Do-young

Busan

Attorney Lee Do-young

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each party.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. On February 16, 1984, the Plaintiff and the Defendant were legally married couple who reported to the marriage, and there was CC and her son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son from April 2008 to November 1 of the same year. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the Defendant reported a divorce on February 17, 209.

B. At the time of the above consultation, the plaintiff was in operation as a mushroom wholesaler in Busan***** in the Dong*** in the Busan City, the defendant was in operation as a mushroom wholesaler, and the plaintiff was in operation as a member of Busan Metropolitan City****** in the Gu, and the defendant was in operation as a member of **. The plaintiff and the defendant decided to raise the plaintiff's children and held, as they are, the title holder of each party's property while deciding to raise the plaintiff's children (Provided, That on December 11, 2008, the defendant agreed on the division of property and the consolation money for the plaintiff on December 11, 2008.

C. However, the Defendant, at around 2005, had a sexual intercourse with the YellowF first in spring in 2006, and had a mutual family from B to June 201 when there was a mutual home, and had a life close to living with the YellowF by placing clothes at a room located in the business place operated by the YellowF as time went from B to June 201.

D. Meanwhile, around 2008, the Defendant installed a tape recorder on the Plaintiff’s automobile or requested a public interest clinic to track the location of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in order to find out the Plaintiff’s mispercing error, such as the Plaintiff’s influence, etc.

E. The Plaintiff, at the end of July 2014, was aware of the facts set forth in sub-paragraph (c) and (d) above, i.e., the Defendant’s post facto distribution, and the yellowF, etc., and first known of such facts.

【Ground of Recognition】 Each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including each number);

the testimony of the Yellow FF, the ACF joint wholesale market of this Court, and the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation

As a result of inquiry and submission order of financial transaction information, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

According to the above facts, it is clear that the defendant and the sulfurF committed an illegal act for a long time, and there was an illegal act, and thus, the plaintiff and the defendant were divorced. It is reasonable to view that the plaintiff agreed on the division of property and consolation money with the defendant without considering all such circumstances at the time of the divorce with the defendant. Thus, the defendant is obliged to pay mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff in money.

Furthermore, it is reasonable to determine the amount of consolation money to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff as KRW 20,000,000,000, in full view of all the circumstances shown in the pleadings of the instant case, including the following: (a) whether the Defendant and Yellow F, committed an unlawful act with the EE; (b) the circumstances and degree of such an act; (c) the agreement on division of property and consolation money at the time of the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the marriage between the Plaintiff and the Defendant; and (d) the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

Therefore, from September 24, 2014, which was the day following the day on which the Plaintiff served on the Defendant with a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages to the Plaintiff by 5% per annum under the Civil Act until July 7, 2015 and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the day of full payment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.