beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 5,000,000 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and against this, from November 26, 2016 to May 24, 2017.
Reasons
1. The Defendants, on August 13, 2016, prepared a written statement to the Defendant B stating that “The relationship with the Defendant B shall be adjusted, and in the future, contact or harassment shall no longer be made against the Defendant B. After the vehicle, the Defendants would have the legal measures taken when contact, harassment, and intimidation with the Defendant B.” Thus, the instant claim of this case is unlawful against the said written statement.
According to the statement in the evidence No. 3, although the plaintiff prepared and made the above statement to the defendant B, it is difficult to view that the above statement contains the content of the non-claim special agreement that the plaintiff would not institute a lawsuit for damages caused by the defendants' misconduct.
The defendants' defense is without merit.
2. Determination on the main claim
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) and Defendant B commenced a de facto marriage from November 4, 2012. The Defendants had committed an illegal act from around November 2015 to around the Plaintiff’s death. The Plaintiff and Defendant B had been on the part of the Plaintiff. However, the Defendants continued to commit an illegal act. The Plaintiff and Defendant B resolved a de facto marriage relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on October 17, 2016. Since a de facto marriage relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was broken down due to the Defendants’ wrongful act, the Plaintiff was jointly liable to pay KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff as consolation money, the Defendants’ assertion by the Defendants and Defendant B had already resided in a de facto marriage relationship after cancelling their de facto marriage from the end of March 2015, and thus, the Defendants cannot be deemed to have committed a tort against the Plaintiff on November 1, 2015.
Defendant B had been living together with the Plaintiff and had a de facto marital relationship from March 10, 2016 to June 8, 2016. However, this is after they were hedging with Defendant C.
(b) judgment;