The case holding that the claim for damages caused by the failure of marriage against the injured party of the spouse falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the family court because it constitutes the claim for damages against the third party on the ground of divorce.

Article 2 (1) (A) of the Family Litigation Act

Plaintiff (Attorney Ho-ho et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other (Attorney Sung-il, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2007Na33837 decided January 17, 2008

Of the judgment below, the part on the claim for damages caused by the failure of marriage with Defendant 1 is reversed, and the above part of the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. This part of the case is transferred to the Seoul Family Court. Defendant 2’s appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal by Defendant 2 are assessed against Defendant 2.

1. Determination on Defendant 1’s grounds of appeal

A claim for damages caused by divorce, including a claim against a third party, shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of a family litigation case under Article 2(1)(a)(c)(2) of the Family Litigation Act, which falls under the jurisdiction of a family court.

However, among the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 1 in this case, the plaintiff's claim for damages against the plaintiff 50 million won for consolation money and delay damages on the ground that the plaintiff's marital relationship has disappeared due to an unlawful act, such as the adultery between the above defendant and the plaintiff's husband, and the plaintiff's husband's divorce, constitutes a claim for damages against the third party caused by divorce, and therefore the above claim for damages falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the family court.

Therefore, since the above claim for damages among the lawsuits filed with the Seoul Central District Court was brought against the exclusive jurisdiction, the court below should have revoked the above claim for damages among the judgment of the court of first instance that rendered a judgment on the whole claim of this case and transferred this part of this case to the Seoul Family Court, which is the general forum of Defendant 1. The court below did not take such measures and rendered a judgment on the above claim for damages. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the exclusive jurisdiction, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination on Defendant 2’s grounds of appeal

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, it is difficult to view the donation of this case as the property division name in consideration of consolation money, etc., even though it is difficult to view that the gift of this case was made under the agreement between the Defendants after recognizing the facts as stated in the judgment below, and considering various circumstances, and even if the Defendants’ intent was made under the property division name, it is merely the Defendant 1’s disposition of property division, which was made by the Gu office, and its entire amount is excessive. Accordingly, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, it cannot be deemed that the fact-finding or

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the claim for damages caused by the failure of a matrimonial relationship with Defendant 1 is reversed, and the above part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and this part of the case shall be transferred to the competent court, and the appeal by Defendant 2 shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal by Defendant 2 shall be borne by the losing party. It is so

Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)