[1] The case holding that an act constitutes an illegal act which is a cause of judicial divorce even though there is no positive evidence as to the concurrent act

[2] The case holding that the claim for damages against the other party of the wrongful act committed by a person who has a spouse although there is no probability of proving such an act

[1] The case holding that if a male who has a wife has continued to have a constant teaching relationship with another female, the above act of Eul constitutes an unlawful act committed by the husband, even though there is no doubt as to the existence of a common teaching relationship between Eul and Byung, the above act of Eul constitutes an unlawful act committed by the husband's duty of mutual aid as her husband

[2] The case holding that Byung's act, even though it was known that Eul had a wife for the other male who is the other male of the teaching system, was involved in the illegal act that violated Eul's duty of good faith as the husband of Eul against Eul, and further, if it became a factor of Gap's dissolution of a matrimonial relationship with Eul, it shall be an illegal act that deviates from the scope of social validity in light of sound social norms, and therefore Byung shall be liable for damages against Eul, even though there was no probability of the adultery

[1] Article 840, / [2] Articles 750, 806, 840, and 843 of the Civil Act

[1]

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 10 others (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff (Attorney Jeon Soo-hoon et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other (Attorney in charge et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellee)

1. The plaintiff shall pay 30 million won with the rate of 25 percent per annum from February 13, 1997 to the day of full payment. The defendant 2 shall pay 10 million won among the above amounts with the defendant 1 and each of the above amounts, and 5 percent per annum from March 6, 1997 to August 20 of the same year, and 25 percent per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendant 2 are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the plaintiff and the defendant 1 is divided into the above defendant, and the part arising between the plaintiff and the defendant 2 is divided into three parts and one of them is assessed against the plaintiff, and the remainder is assessed against the defendant 2

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendants jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff 30,000,000 won with an interest of 25 percent per annum from the day following the day of delivery of the complaint of this case until the day of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the argument in evidence 1-1, evidence 2, evidence 2-4 through 30, 32 through 36, evidence 38 through 42, evidence 3-2, 3, 4, evidence 1-8, 9, and evidence 1-20 (Provided, That evidence 2-4, 28, 30, 32, 33, 34, 39, 40, 41, evidence 3-2, 3, 3-4, and evidence 3-2, 3, 4, and 1-8 of evidence 1-8 shall not be included in evidence 2-4, 28, 30, 31, 32, 334, 34, 39-4, and 31-4, each evidence 30-4, and 1-4, and each evidence of evidence 2-2, contrary to the above recognition shall not be included in evidence 3-1.

A. The Plaintiff graduated from the influenite department of Tae-do-U.S., and majored in the course of art by studying in France at a happy home, while Defendant 1 graduated from the Signa-U.S.-U.S.-U.-U.S.-U.S.-U.-U.S.-U.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.-U.S.-U.-U.S.-U.-U.S.-U.S.-U.-U.S.-U.S.-U.-U.S.-U.-U.S.-U.S.-U.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.-U.-U.S.-U.S.-U.-U.S.-U.S.-U.S.

나. 그 후 원고는 피고 1의 제의로 동해안 일대를 함께 여행한 것이 계기가 되어 위 피고가 7년 연하임에도 불구하고 위 피고와 동거하게 되자 1992. 4. 2. 일단 혼인신고부터 한 후 시집에서 시어머니 등 시댁식구들과 함께 생활하면서 슬하에 1남 1녀의 자녀를 두었으나, 위 피고는 1992. 4.경 금 700,000원을 월급이라고 주었을 뿐 그 후에는 학원에 강사로 나간다고 하면서도 생활비를 제대로 주지 아니하여 경제적으로 어려움이 많았고, 그리하여 1994. 1.경부터는 원고가 중학생들의 영어과외를 하여 생활비를 보탰다.

C. In addition, Defendant 1 appeared to have shown the color that the help of the Plaintiff-friendly machines with an economically and economically surplused time, the Plaintiff’s workplace is false or false, and the parents in the place of friendship and extracurricular lessons frequently make false or false statements to the Plaintiff, and as a result, there are frequent cases where the Plaintiff’s academic background and the ability of the side of the wife to the surrounding people, Defendant 1 lost the trust of the above Defendant’s suspension from office and became doubtful.

라. 그러던 중 피고 1은 안성에 있는 원고 어머니 소유의 건물을 개조한 후 대학생에게 임대하여 관리하게 되었는데 임대료 수입을 제때 송금하지 아니한 일로 다툼이 생겨 이를 따지는 원고에게 손찌검을 하였다가 원고가 집을 나가자 며칠 후 용서를 빌고 원고를 집으로 돌아오게 하였고, 한편으로 위 피고는 원고가 시집에 들어와 시어머니와 가족을 모시고 살면서 시어머니 봉양을 소홀히 하고 시댁친척 등을 무시하는 태도를 보이자 원고에게 실망하게 되어 원고와 위 피고 사이에 불화가 계속되었다.

마. 피고 2는 원래 피고 1의 동생인 소외 인의 애인으로서 1994. 8.경 위 소외인을 통해서 피고 1을 알게 되었고 위 소외인이나 피고 1을 통하여 피고 1이 원고와 결혼한 사실을 알고 있었는데, 피고 1은 피고 2와 위 소외인이 헤어진 1994. 가을경부터 피고 2에게 영어교습을 한다는 명목으로 지속적으로 만났고 피고 2가 대치동으로 이사한 후로는 새벽마다 나가 피고 2의 집에서 피고 2의 직장인 (이름 생략)병원까지 승용차로 출근시켰으며, 그 무렵 주말이면 이유 없이 외박을 하거나 여행을 다녔을 뿐만 아니라 씀씀이도 커져 카드대금이 계속 연체되었으므로 피고 1의 행동에 의심을 품은 원고는 피고 1의 승용차 안에서 피고 2가 피고 1에게 여권발급을 부탁하며 교부한 피고 2의 주민등록표 등본, 피고 2의 신용카드를 피고 1이 사용한 비씨카드 거래명세표, 호텔 명함, 팜플렛, 숙박비지불 영수증 등을 발견하고 피고 1의 행적을 추궁한 결과 1995. 3. 24.경 피고 1로부터 피고 2와 함께 제주도, 설악산 등지를 돌아다니며 여러 번 동침하였다는 시인을 받았으나, 피고 1이 그 이후로는 피고 2와의 관계를 청산하고 새사람이 되겠다고 맹세하며 각서까지 써 주자 피고 1의 잘못을 용서하고 새로운 마음으로 함께 살기로 하였고, 당시 피고 2도 원고가 집으로 전화를 하여서 원고와 피고 1 사이에 자신의 문제로 불화가 있었다는 사실을 알게 되었다.

F. However, at around May 195, when Defendant 2 discovered a plastic bag, which Defendant 1 received from a woman within the new forest dong, in the passenger car of Defendant 1, it was found that Defendant 2 was accompanied by Defendant 1 upon the request of Defendant 2 when the above hospital undergoes a abortion operation at the above hospital on June of the same month, and on the 1st of the same month, Defendant 1 knew that Defendant 1 would liquidate the relationship with Defendant 2, such as remitting the credit card amount of KRW 731,00 to be used by Defendant 1 as the credit card amount of KRW 731,00,00, etc., even though Defendant 1 continued to become aware of the fact that Defendant 2 had continued to come into existence, the Plaintiff would not be able to receive again the statement that Defendant 1 had continued sexual intercourse with Defendant 2, and to maintain the marital relationship with Defendant 1, and then filed a criminal complaint against Defendant 1 and the Defendants as a criminal charge.

G. Accordingly, Defendant 1 prepared a letter of commitment with Defendant 2 at the police station to the Plaintiff, and, even if Defendant 2 led to the confession of both the first interrogation of the suspect at the police station and the cross-examination of the nature of Defendant 2, Defendant 2 took care of his previous statement, reversed his previous statement, denied the crime, and denied the crime in the prosecution, thereby denying the crime, and there was no conclusive evidence to support the contents of the complaint. However, in the divorce lawsuit, Defendant 1 was sentenced to the judgment of winning the Plaintiff on July 30, 1996, which became final and conclusive on August 22, 198.

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts, Defendant 1 neglected to pay his or her academic background, economic ability, etc. after marriage, make false statements on his or her workplace after marriage, etc. while neglecting to pay his or her living expenses to the neighbors. Due to Defendant 1’s aforementioned false words and actions without responsibility, which were revealed after marriage, Defendant 1 lost her husband’s patriotism and trust against Defendant 1. Defendant 1 continued to come up with Defendant 2, who became aware of his or her birth as his or her father, but he or she was aware of it, and the Plaintiff would liquidate the relationship with Defendant 2 and will be a new person. Although Defendant 1 received a letter from the Plaintiff, the Defendants did not be punished as a crime of adultery, but even if they received a letter from Defendant 1, the intrinsic nature of the relationship with Defendant 2, based on trust between Defendant 1 and his or her husband, and thus, Defendant 1 and his or her husband did not have any duty to recover to the extent corresponding to his or her marital life.

B. Meanwhile, even though Defendant 2 was married to Defendant 1 and Defendant 1 knew of the fact that the relationship between the Plaintiff and Defendant 1 was infinite due to the Defendants’ relationship, Defendant 1 took part in the illegal act committed by Defendant 1, who committed an act of continuously entering into a teaching relationship with Defendant 1, as above, and this is an unlawful act that deviates from the scope of social feasibility in light of sound social norms, and further, this is the principal factor that led to the failure of the relationship between the Plaintiff and Defendant 1.

C. In addition, since it is clear in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff and defendant 1 suffered mental pain due to the failure of the marital relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant 1 as above, the defendants are obligated to pay them in money. Considering the age, property level, the period of marital life of the plaintiff and defendant 1, the details of marriage and the degree of responsibility of the defendants as to them, and all other circumstances shown in pleadings, consolation money to be paid to the plaintiff shall be set at KRW 30,000,000 per annum, and KRW 10,000,000 per annum, respectively. Accordingly, the defendant 1 is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 30,000 as consolation money and KRW 25,00 per annum from the day following the day of delivery of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment, to KRW 30,000,000 per annum from February 13, 1997 to the day of full payment, the plaintiff's 10,000 won and damages for delay from 97.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 1 is reasonable, and the claim against the defendant 2 is justified only within the extent of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition with a declaration of provisional execution.

Judges Kim Jae-ho