2015Dhap200190 (Main Money)

2015Dhap200718 (Counterclaim Condolence Money)

Fixed0 (19* * Aged)

Busan Address

Attorney Lee Do-young

Kim 00 (19* * Aged)

Busan Address

Busan place of service

Law Firm Doz.

October 27, 2016

November 24, 2016

1. Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) pays to Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) 40,00,000 consolation money with 5% per annum from October 7, 2016 to November 24, 2016, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s remaining principal claim and Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s counterclaim are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) respectively. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and 2, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

In the principal lawsuit: Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) pays 80,00,000 won as consolation money to Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and its equivalent at the rate of 15% per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the application for change of claim and cause of claim of this case to the day of full payment.

Counterclaim: The plaintiff shall pay 30,00,000 won as consolation money and 20% interest per annum to the defendant at the rate of 30% from the day following the delivery of a copy of the counterclaim to the day of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 27, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered marriage and commenced living together.

B. Even after marriage, the Defendant exchanged contact with other women, and received KRW 600,000 per month from the Plaintiff as a living expense, but did not disclose his income and expenditure, which led to conflict with the Plaintiff.

C. On March 16, 2014, the Defendant: (a) reported the ice of the Defendant’s Nitts’s Republic of Korea on the 16th of March, 2014, and asked the Plaintiff at the time of the Plaintiff’s her clock; and (b) caused the Plaintiff’s clock.

D. On September 11, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) filed a claim with the Defendant, and (b) returned the house to friendly; and (c) requested the Plaintiff to resolve a de facto marriage relationship.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, 9, 13 through 15 (each number includes numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), family affairs investigator's investigation report, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the claim of consolation money for each principal lawsuit and counterclaim

(a) Claim for consolation money: 40,000,000 won;

(b) Claim for solatium consolation money: Dismissal.

[Grounds for Determination]

1) It is recognized that a de facto marital relationship has ceased to exist.

Various circumstances should be taken into account, such as the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant are living separately from September 2014, that both parties want to resolve their marriage, that both parties want to recover trust, and that there seems to be no possibility to continue their marital life.

2) The principal liability for failure in a de facto marriage lies with the Defendant.

In light of the purport of the entire pleadings in the above facts of recognition, it is the responsibility for the failure of de facto marriage to resolve the conflicts that occur during the marriage life even to the Plaintiff, without sufficiently making efforts to resolve the conflicts that occur during the marriage life. However, rather than that, it is a fundamental and main responsibility for the failure of de facto marriage to the Defendant who ultimately damages the trust of the couple by demanding a resolution of de facto marriage with the Plaintiff, even though he/she suffers conflicts with the Plaintiff due to the exchange with other women during the marriage period, unilateral economic management, etc.

The defendant alleged that a de facto marital relationship was broken out due to the plaintiff's verbal abuse, assault, suspicion, and frequent running, but the evidence submitted to this court alone is insufficient to recognize the allegation or it is difficult to view that the failure in a de facto marital relationship was a major cause of a de facto marital failure by itself.

The above argument is rejected.

3) Amount of consolation money

Considering the cause and responsibility of de facto marriage failure, the period of de facto marriage, the age, occupation, economic power of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the Plaintiff’s predetermination and living expenses, etc., the amount of consolation money that the Defendant ought to pay to the Plaintiff is reasonable to determine as KRW 40,00,000, and KRW 000.

C. Sub-determination

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at a rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from October 7, 2016 to November 24, 2016, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the purport of the instant claim and the application for modification of the cause of the claim, as sought by the Plaintiff, after the de facto de facto marital relationship of KRW 40,00,000 as consolation money, and the de facto marital relationship with the Plaintiff was broken down.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of the main lawsuit is accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the plaintiff's claim of the main lawsuit and the defendant's counterclaim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is decided as per Disposition.

Judges Do-constition

Judges Park Jong-hee

Judges Cho Jae-sung