logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 서부지원 2018.01.10 2016가단61133
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 27, 1982, the Plaintiff and C were legally married couples who completed the marriage report with C and C, and their children D. 2) The Plaintiff retired from the school where the Plaintiff had been on February 12, 1994, when the Plaintiff was at high school teachers due to drinking problems and other problems.

3) C left the country for not less than two years after leaving the country, and returned to her house during 1997. Since then C demanded divorce from the Plaintiff and stayed in the house for three months, but re-explosives the contact with his family by leaving the house. (B) On February 12, 1994, C, while leaving the Republic of Korea on July 1996, had lived with the Defendant, who was under the influence of the Republic of Korea around 196, around 196, around 3 weeks.

2) Since then C left the Defendant, the Defendant got out of the Republic of Korea, and the Defendant gave birth to, and took care of, son on September 4, 2002, and reported F on September 4, 2002 to both women. 3) The Defendant reconvened C around 2004 to know that son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s her children.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 27 evidence, Eul's 1 through 8 evidence (including each number for a case with a serial number), the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that C left the family for religious reasons, but the Plaintiff believed C to have a long-term incompetence relationship with the Defendant.

It is clear that the Defendant was aware that C was married in the course of birth and fostering of F even though he had known that C was married to the Plaintiff at the time of the first day.

As such, the defendant interfered with the marital life of the plaintiff C and continued the marital marital relationship that is not permitted by the law.

Since the plaintiff suffered enormous mental suffering, the defendant is obligated to do so in cash.

3. Determination A.

arrow