2014Na52674, Claims for Damages

2014Na52681 (Counterclaim)

A

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Law Firm B

1.C

2.D

Defendant Counterclaim (Law Firm E)

Defendant Counterclaim (Plaintiffs Counterclaim) Attorney F-at-Law

Busan District Court Decision 2014Gahap443 decided August 28, 2014 (main office);

2014Gaz. 100862 decided

May 21, 2015

July 16, 2015

1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s appeal against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s incidental appeal against the instant counterclaim are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal and incidental costs shall be borne respectively by each person;

1. Purport of claim

The principal lawsuit: Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) jointly pays 200,000,000 won to Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) as well as 5% per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of the first judgment, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

Counterclaim: The plaintiff shall pay the defendants 30,000,000 won each and 20% interest per annum from the service date of the copy of the counterclaim of this case to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The principal lawsuit: The part against the plaintiff falling under the following among the part concerning the principal lawsuit of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The defendants jointly pay to the plaintiff 30 million won and the amount calculated by the ratio of 20% per annum from the day after the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

Counterclaim: Revocation of the part against the plaintiff among the part concerning the counterclaim of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the defendant C's counterclaim claim falling under the above revoked part shall be dismissed.

3. Purport of incidental appeal;

The part against the Defendants falling under the part of the counterclaim of the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The Plaintiff shall pay to Defendant C 20 million won, 30 million won to Defendant D, and 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

The reasoning for this part of the court's explanation is that it is identical to that of Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parties' assertion

The Plaintiff stated false facts to the effect that the Plaintiff and the Defendant C were illegitimate relations, such as the Plaintiff’s sexual intercourse, after marriage, and that the Plaintiff and G were divorced, the Defendants asserted that they are liable for compensating the Plaintiff for the Plaintiff’s damage caused by the marriage dissolution. On the contrary, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff was liable for compensating the Defendant for the Plaintiff’s damage caused by the marriage dissolution. On the contrary, the Defendants asserted that, even though the Plaintiff was in alliance with the Defendant C under the premise of marriage, the Defendants were not only married with G in the future, but also maintained the relationship with Defendant C by hiding the marriage after the marriage, and thereby, maintained the relationship with Defendant

3. Determination

A. Determination on the main claim

In light of the following facts: (a) the Defendants did not appear to have been married to the Plaintiff on August 9, 2013; (b) on the premise that the Defendants were unable to find that they were married to the Plaintiff on the ground that they were not married to the Plaintiff on the ground that they were not married to the Plaintiff; (c) on the ground that they were unable to find that they were married to the Plaintiff on the ground that they were not married to the Plaintiff on the ground that they did not have any other grounds; (d) on the ground that they were married to the Plaintiff on the ground that they were not married to the Plaintiff; (e) on the ground that they were unable to find that they had no contact with the Plaintiff on the part of their parents; and (e) on the ground that they had no contact with the Plaintiff on the fact that they had no contact with the Plaintiff on the grounds that they had no contact with the Plaintiff on the fact that they had no contact with the Plaintiff on the part of their parents; and (e) on the ground that they had no contact with the Plaintiff on the part of their parents at the time of their departure.

B. Determination on the counterclaim

1) Determination as to Defendant C’s claim

A) Establishment of liability for damages

The right to sexual self-determination refers to the right to choose the opposite party and to have a sexual relationship under his/her own responsibility on the basis of his/her own gender values based on his/her own decision-making based on his/her own decision-making decision-making. Although women demand a sexual relationship, even if the opposite male expresses active difficulties, whether or not the opposite male has a sexual relationship should be judged by itself and the liability incidental thereto should also be borne by himself/herself. However, the right to sexual self-determination like the above means the right to choose the opposite party and have a sexual relationship at his/her free will without undue interference from any other person. Furthermore, in light of the perception of marriage and sexual behavior in our society, the issue of whether the opposite party is a married person is a very important basis in choosing the opposite party to enter into a sexual relationship. Accordingly, one's act constitutes an unlawful act that infringes on the other party's right to sexual self-determination.

In full view of the above facts of recognition and evidence No. 36, and the purport of the entire argument in the first instance court’s examination as to Defendant C, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s series of acts that the Plaintiff thought to be a married person with the Defendant C by hiding and continuing such facts to Defendant C, even after the marriage with G, and by actively deceiving Defendant C, who was an unmarried woman who was a woman who was a sexual intercourse with the Plaintiff on the premise of marriage, even after the marriage with G, constitutes an infringement of the right of sexual self-determination by interfering with the free decision-making of the Defendant C’s sexual self-determination and ultimately infringing on the right of sexual self-determination. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is liable for compensation for damages arising from mental distress suffered by Defendant C due to the above tort.

B) Scope of damages

Considering the circumstances revealed in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the developments and period of the teaching system between the Plaintiff and the Defendant C, the circumstances before and after sexual relations, the mental impulse of the Defendant C, the age and occupation of the Plaintiff and the Defendant C, it is reasonable to determine the amount of consolation money for the Defendant C as KRW 10,000,000.

Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay to Defendant C damages for delay calculated at each rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from May 22, 2014, which is the date of delivery of a copy of the counterclaim of this case, to August 28, 2014, which is the date of adjudication of the first instance court, and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

2) Determination as to Defendant D’s claim

Although the Plaintiff’s death on the premise of marriage with Defendant C and continued to serve with Defendant C even after marriage with G, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s above act constitutes a direct infringement of Defendant D’s right due to the Plaintiff’s above act, and there is no other evidence to support this, the above assertion by Defendant D is without merit without further examination.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's main claim is dismissed as it is without merit. The defendant C's counterclaim claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder of the counterclaim is dismissed as it is without merit. The defendant D's counterclaim claim is dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion. Thus, the plaintiff's appeal as to the main claim and the counterclaim and incidental appeal as to the defendants' counterclaim are all dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Exemplary (Presiding Judge)

Franchisia

Notarial decoration;