2015dward 4265 Compensation for Damages

ParkA********************)**)

Busan Address

LeeB (********************)**)

Busan Address

Busan place of service

August 26, 2015

September 23, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 30 million won with 20% interest per annum from the next day of the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the Plaintiff asserted that the cafeteria was a cafeteria, the Plaintiff’s previous KimCC had had a multiple calls with the Defendant. However, even at the time when the Plaintiff closed the cafeteria, it was confirmed that the Plaintiff’s exchange of telephone and text messages frequently with the Defendant was also confirmed as a result of the call conference in the divorce lawsuit conducted between the Plaintiff and KimCC, and the Defendant did not reply to the Plaintiff’s continuous demand for explanation, as well as the Defendant was subject to the disposition of imposition of a fine for negligence by failing to attend without justifiable grounds even after receiving a request for attendance as a witness of the above divorce lawsuit. Accordingly, there was an actual misconduct between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and thereby, the marriage life between the Plaintiff and KimCC was broken down.

Therefore, the defendant asserts that he is liable to compensate for consolation money for mental distress suffered by the plaintiff due to the above tort.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff and KimCC were legal couple who completed the marriage report on August 10, 1983.

B. Since the marriage, the Plaintiff frequently committed violence against KimCC without any special reason. In particular, on May 1, 201, at the inside of the residence where around 00:10 and around 00:10, KimCC found her friendly-gu and drinking at the place where he had been living together on the preceding day, he/she suffered injury to KimCC, such as a spath, requiring approximately 4 weeks of treatment. The KimCC filed a criminal complaint with the same content as the Plaintiff, while putting the Plaintiff separately from the said injury case. The Plaintiff was indicted for the above criminal facts, and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor on December 24, 201, and the dismissal of the appeal became final and conclusive on December 29, 2012 (Supreme Court Decision 200Da1908, Jun. 29, 2012).

D. After the judgment of the first instance court was rendered, the Plaintiff filed a criminal charge of perjury with KimCC by asserting that the testimony of KimCC was false, but on August 21, 2012, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of perjury by the Busan District Prosecutors’ Office No. 2012 type No. 19176, the prosecution appeal was filed, and the application for a ruling was dismissed in entirety.

E. On June 2, 2011, KimCC filed a divorce lawsuit (the case of divorce, etc.) with the Busan Family Court (the principal lawsuit). On July 1, 2011, the Plaintiff also filed a divorce lawsuit (the case of divorce) and other cases on July 1, 2011. On February 25, 2013, the Busan Family Court (the Busan Family Court) is mainly responsible for the Plaintiff who used violence against KimCC without any special reason during the marriage period, and the Plaintiff is divorced and the Plaintiff paid 30 million won and damages for delay thereof to KimCC (the case of divorce, etc.) with the Busan Family Court. However, the judgment dismissing the remainder of the appeal on December 12, 2013 (the first instance court’s dismissal of the first instance court’s judgment) and the first instance judgment became final and conclusive (the first instance court’s dismissal of the first instance court’s appeal).

바. 위 이혼소송에서 확인된 김CC의 통화내역에 대한 사실조회결과(2011. 11. 1.자 SK텔레콤에 대한 사실조회결과)를 분석하면 별지 표 기재와 같고, 김CC는 2011. 4. 11. 피고에게 "잘 계신가요♥"라는 문자메시지를 전송한 적이 있다.

G. The Plaintiff asserted that KimCC committed a fraudulent act with a restaurant in the first instance court on the grounds of the aforementioned monetary content and text messages, but the appellate court asserted that, while specifying the relevant parties as the Defendant, there was a fraudulent act between KimCC and the Defendant, and that the marital relationship was broken down. The first instance court and the appellate court rejected all of these arguments on the grounds that it is difficult to recognize that KimCC committed a fraudulent act beyond the relationship between BB and restaurant operators and customers solely on the basis of the fact that KimCC received text messages relatively frequent or exchanged with the Defendant from January 201 to April 201.

H. Although the Plaintiff submitted several preparatory documents to the effect that this Court demands specific explanatory measures against the Defendant based on the aforementioned monetary content, the Plaintiff did not have any other obvious evidence supporting the assertion.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 through 10, 13 through 15 (including branch numbers in case of virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

3. Determination

In full view of the purport of the entire argument in the above facts, it is recognized that the defendant, including the time when KimCC closed down a restaurant, received a relatively frequent text message from January 201 to April 201, and did not make an explanation that the plaintiff would be able to understand the reasons, even though he/she received or exchanged a relatively frequent text message with KimCC.

However, in light of the following: (a) the call time of the Defendant and KimCC was mostly low or full time; (b) most of the call time was 1 to 2 minutes; and (c) unlike the Plaintiff’s assertion, the call call time between the Defendant and KimCC does not seem to coincide with each other; (b) if the number of calls between the Defendant and the Defendant was set out on March 30, 201, the remaining call time was confirmed to be less than 10 times; and (c) even on March 2011, the contact was made by KimCC was made on two occasions at a morning and two occasions at a morning; and (d) it was difficult to conclude that there was a need for a relatively independent contact with the Defendant, including the Defendant, and that there was a need for a relatively independent contact with the GCC, the contact between the Defendant and KimCC and the Plaintiff, and that there was no actual act or misconduct between the Defendant and the Defendant at a time and place claimed by the Plaintiff, it cannot be concluded that the Plaintiff was unlawful solely on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not have been married.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Lee Jae-Un,