logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.08.28 2019가단512610
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from April 21, 2019 to August 28, 2019.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff and C are legally married couple who reported their marriage on July 2, 2004, and two children (the female, the 2005 female, the 2009 female) are under the chain.

B. Around March 2015, the Defendant began to teach C and maintained the relationship with C, and C is going to leave around June 2018, and is still in separate with the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 7 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The party's assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the assertion asserts that the Plaintiff is liable to pay consolation money, as the Defendant knew of the fact that C had a spouse, maintained the relationship with C from around 2015 with C and caused mental pain to the Plaintiff by committing an unlawful act.

The defendant, from March 2015 to March 3, 2015, alleged that C had no knowledge of his spouse's existence.

B. The fundamental issue of the instant case is whether the Defendant committed an unlawful act with C while knowing that C has a spouse.

In addition, after considering the following facts, the defendant was well aware that C has a child, such as her second child and her mentioning her second child, her second child and her second child, and her second child, the plaintiff and the defendant came to know that C had a relationship with C, and the plaintiff and the defendant came to know that she had a relationship with C, the plaintiff made contact and made conversations between the defendant. The plaintiff asked her "I knew of this fact at any time after having come to her first two months." The defendant asked her again to the purport that "I knew of this fact after having come to her second and second month." The defendant asked her that "I knew of this fact after having come to her second and second month," and the defendant did not answer her to the purport that "I think that she would have come to her first and second month, not because she was her own important but she was able to come to her second and second her."

arrow