2017dago 210842 Consolation Money

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

September 5, 2018

September 19, 2018

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 10 million won with 5% interest per annum from January 13, 2018 to September 19, 2018, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each party.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 30 million won with 15% interest per annum from the day after the delivery of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff and Kim 00 reported marriage on June 13, 1986, and three children.

B. From April 2012 to May 2017, the Defendant returned to the Republic of Korea along with Kim00, and each of them held a public performance. In each of the performances, Kim 00 performed a three-dimensional marital role. The Defendant played a three-dimensional marital role.

C. On June 2013, 2013, Kim 00 told that he/she had his/her wife and had his/her wife engaged in activities together with his/her wife. On June 2015, 2015, he/she attended a group meeting of noncommissioned Officers in the same opportunity with the Defendant, and thereafter, he/she was taken a group photograph in a state where he/she became aware of the Defendant. Kim 00 was present at a noncommissioned Officer’s meeting in the same opportunity as the Defendant.

D. When the Defendant was associated with Kim 00 on May 2017 and another theory came to work at a public performance hall, Kim 00 came to know that she would go to the Defendant on or around September 2017, 201, she would go to the name of her, she was aware that she was the head of her, and she was aware that she was a form of her body, she would be hicking, she would be hicking, and she was irrehing, and she was irreging with her mind, and she agreed to dial and work in the form of dial-a-a-mail.

E. In light of the Plaintiff’s suspicion of Kim 00’s external map and the denial of Kim 00, the Plaintiff and Kim 00, if it is certain to prove the evidence of the wind pin, the Plaintiff and Kim o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o, o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

F. On July 19, 2017, the Plaintiff and Kim 00 confirmed the intention of divorce on July 19, 2017, and on October 11, 2017 upon the report of Kim 00, an agreement was married.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Evidence No. 11, and whole purport of the pleading

2. Determination

A. Obligation to pay consolation money and amount of consolation money

(1) The occurrence of the obligation to pay consolation money

In principle, a third party's act of causing mental distress to the spouse by infringing on or interfering with the common life of the married couple falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with the spouse of the married couple and infringing on the spouse's right as the spouse (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da1899, May 13, 2005, etc.).

According to the facts established above, the defendant knew that he had a spouse to Kim 00 and committed an unlawful act with Kim 00. In light of the circumstances that the plaintiff suspected of having a son Kim 00's appearance and caused the plaintiff's unlawful act, which led to the failure of the marriage between the plaintiff and Kim 00. Therefore, the defendant is obligated to compensate for mental damage suffered by the plaintiff (the defendant did not assert that the marriage between the plaintiff and Kim 00 was in distress since 10 years prior to the failure of the marriage, but the plaintiff and Kim 0 filed an application for a divorce before 10 years prior to the beginning of pleadings, namely, the plaintiff and Kim 15 filed an application for a settlement, but they lived with women and live together with them, and the plaintiff and Kim 100 prior to the failure of the marriage between the plaintiff and Kim 10 years prior to the expiration of the marriage between September 20, 2017, it is difficult to accept the plaintiff's allegation that the plaintiff and Kim 10 years prior to the failure of the marriage.

(2) Amount of consolation money

The Plaintiff and Kim 00, the extent and manner of the Defendant’s wrongful act, the period, and the Defendant’s rejection of the father’s act, and there was no serious apology against the Plaintiff. On the other hand, conflicts other than the father’s act may also be deemed to have caused the failure of the marriage between the Plaintiff and Kim 00 (the Plaintiff’s legal brief dated May 7, 2018, where Kim 00 received a loan of KRW 17 million after the Plaintiff’s death was the opportunity for filing a divorce), such as the following: (a) The amount of consolation money to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff is determined as KRW 10,000,000, in consideration of the various circumstances shown in the instant pleadings, such as the period of marriage, the degree and manner of the Defendant’s wrongful act; and (b) the conflict other than the father’s act.

B. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

(1) The defendant asserts that the common property of the plaintiff and Kim 00 is KRW 150 million at the market price and KRW 60 million at the Busan Young-dong and the secured loan obligation against the Busan Bank, and that there is a property division claim of at least KRW 45 million at least half of the total amount against the plaintiff. The plaintiff agreed to offset the amount equal to the plaintiff's consolation money and receive only KRW 10 million at the division of property. The above set-off that the plaintiff's compensation obligation against the plaintiff and the defendant's compensation obligation against the plaintiff in the joint and several liability relationship with Kim 00 also extinguished.

According to the evidence evidence No. 17, the plaintiff and Kim 00, Oct. 23, 2017, the plaintiff paid 10 million won to Kim 00 for the re-division until October 23, 2017. The plaintiff and Kim 00, not for additional property claims such as consolation money and division of property with respect to the divorce of this case except as provided in the above." It is acknowledged that the agreement (hereinafter referred to as "the agreement of this case") was prepared with the content of the agreement of 00, 100, 300, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 1000, 100,000, 100,000,000 won and 10,000,000 won and 10,000,000 won and 10,000,00 won.

(2) Meanwhile, the grounds such as repayment that achieve the purpose of a claim among the vicarious debtors jointly and severally liable have absolute effect on all the debtors, but the other reasons are relative effect, and even if the victim renounced his right to compensate for damages to one of the debtors or expresses his/her intent to exempt him/her from his/her obligation, it does not have effect on the other debtors (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da19378, Jan. 27, 2006). According to the agreement of this case, there may be room for suggesting that the plaintiff would not later claim consolation money against Kim 00 to waive his/her claim for consolation money, and the waiver of the claim for consolation money against Kim 00 does not affect the other vicarious debtors as the vicarious debtors jointly and severally liable.

C. Sub-committee

The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant’s obligation of consolation money was extinguished as a set-off against Kim 00 has no merit, and even if the Plaintiff renounced his claim of consolation money against Kim 00, it does not affect the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff the delayed damage amount calculated at a rate of 15% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from January 13, 2018, the day following the delivery date of the complaint of this case, which is the day when the Defendant served the complaint of this case, to the extent that it is reasonable for the Defendant to resist the existence and scope of the obligation, until September 19, 2018, which is the day of the decision of this case, and from the next day until the day of full payment, 5% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

3. Conclusion

A The plaintiff's claim is accepted within the extent of recognition above, and the remaining claims are dismissed for lack of grounds.

Judges Yoon Jae-nam