205 Ghana 136829 Damage, Claim

00

00

September 14, 2006

November 16, 2006

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 7 million won with 5% interest per annum from January 27, 2006 to November 16, 2006 and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 5 minutes of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff, and the remainder is assessed against the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 50 million won with 20% interest per annum from the day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a legally married couple who completed the report of marriage with A in 1995, and has a father and wife (10 years of age).

B. On the other hand, at around October 2004, A met with the defendant, who was a son, at the early elementary school motive group in spring of 2004, and later met with the defendant and China, and entered the defendant's house from the end of the same year. On the other hand, around October 2004, the defendant married with her husband. The plaintiff saw A's speech that A wind is winded, and she did not enter the defendant's house at around 03:00 on December 19, 2005, and entered the police house, but at the time, the defendant and A got into the defendant's house, but did not find any common boom. Meanwhile, the defendant was sent to the fire station by the rescue team that arrived at the scene at around 04:17 on the same day, and the defendant responded to the symptoms that he was given treatment of her chest and confirmed at the bar.

D. The plaintiff filed a complaint with A and the defendant under the suspicion of cross-competence, but the prosecutor found the plaintiff's words "A" to the defendant's house, but both the defendant and the defendant were taking normal uniforms since the snow on 2005, the plaintiff was living separately from the plaintiff, the defendant and A were living together with the new wall time, and the two people were witness several times in the defendant's house, the suspicion of cross-competence was made, but there was no evidence to prove it.

E. From the time of New Year’s 2005, the Plaintiff filed a divorce lawsuit against A after the said case, and the Plaintiff and A agreed to divorce.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 4, 8, Gap 5-5, Eul 6-1, Eul 10, Eul 13-1 and 4, each statement of witness's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff asserted that the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff a consolation money of KRW 50 million to the plaintiff, since the defendant committed a adultery with the plaintiff and caused the failure of the marital relationship between the plaintiff and the plaintiff, the defendant argued that he was obligated to pay the plaintiff a consolation money of KRW 50 million to the plaintiff, and that the former husband was employed in China, and that the contact was closed. In order to find the husband, the plaintiff was just accompanied by A and China in order to find the husband by having the former husband come to work in China at an elementary school and to introduce the home page well, and it was not good body due to a yellow disorder and depression even in ordinary, since it was not a place where contact was made due to the difficulty of respiratory around December 19, 2005, and that the contact with the former husband was made to the defendant's house, and that there was no fact that the plaintiff did not have any fluent act or any fluent act with the plaintiff.

B. Determination

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant and A have passed the meeting. However, even if it did not reach the meeting, she committed an unlawful act that is not faithful to the duty of mutual assistance between the defendant and the spouse constitutes a tort against the other spouse. As seen in the above facts of recognition, A entered the defendant's house from the end of 2004 and entered the defendant's new wall on December 19, 2005, and it was discovered by the plaintiff who committed the defendant with the defendant's house at the defendant's office at the defendant's office at the new wall on December 19, 205 (A's statement made at the investigation agency, the contact was made between the defendant and the defendant at the defendant's office at the time of their own meeting, but it was a time when the defendant's meeting was made self-determination, and it does not seem that it was an imminent situation like the defendant's assertion, and therefore, it is sufficient that the defendant suffered mental distress between the plaintiff and the defendant, which caused the above mental distress between the plaintiff and the defendant.

Furthermore, with respect to the amount of consolation money that the defendant is liable for, the amount of consolation money shall be determined at KRW 7 million in consideration of the health team, Plaintiff’s age, family relation, period of marriage, circumstances of misconduct, period and degree of liability for the failure of marriage between the plaintiff and A, degree of liability for the failure of marriage between the plaintiff and A, circumstances after misconduct, and all other circumstances shown in the argument of this case

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at a rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from January 27, 2006, the day following the delivery day of the complaint of this case, to November 16, 2006, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment, as the plaintiff's claim is justified within the extent of the above recognition, and the remainder of the claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Judges Lee Jong-chul