logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2016.09.21 2016가단59082
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 20,000,000 as well as its annual rate from May 12, 2016 to September 21, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 10 (including paper numbers), and some entry of Eul evidence No. 1, the whole purport of the pleadings, and there is no counter-proof.

On January 17, 2011, the Plaintiff reported marriage with C.

B. Since July 2014, C had a imperme relationship with the Defendant. At the spring of 2015, C knew of the fact that he was the son, but C continued to communicate and express impermeate, etc. after that, even though C became aware of the fact that he was the son.

C. Around July 2015, the Defendant contacted the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff and Kakakao Stockholm message were in dispute with the Plaintiff, etc., and made an insulting speech between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money to the plaintiff because he knew that he had a spouse in this case, and he knew that he had a spouse in this case and gave an insulting speech to the plaintiff, thereby having inflicted mental pain on the plaintiff.

B. As to this, the defendant did not know of the fact that C was the father and son, but notified the fact that C was the father and son of the fact that C was the father and son, but C had continuously contacted with C, and was aware that C was not only divorced with the plaintiff, and the plaintiff had first sent the words of bath and intimidation, and the plaintiff was a mother who seeks to protect her child by sending the words of bath theory and intimidation, and was not a normal marital relationship with the defendant, and the plaintiff and C had not been in a marital relationship with the plaintiff before the act with the defendant, and therefore, the plaintiff's claim for consolation money against the defendant is without merit.

3. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. A third party shall not interfere with a married couple’s community life falling under the essence of marriage, such as interfering with a couple’s community life by causing a failure of a couple’s community life, etc., and a third party is a couple’s husband and wife

arrow