2019Ro-20317 Consolation Money

A

Section B.

Busan Family Court Decision 2018Ddan203483 Decided January 25, 2019

November 20, 2019

January 8, 2020

1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. 2. The plaintiff's claim as to the above revoked part is dismissed. 3. Total costs of the lawsuit are borne by the plaintiff.

1. Claims;

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 50 million won and to the plaintiff 50 million won from the next day of the service of the complaint of this case

No later than the day, 15% of the annual interest shall be paid.

2. Purport of appeal;

It is as set forth in the text.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

Defendant, both of whom are the spouse of the Plaintiff, committed an unlawful act, thereby failure in the marriage between the Plaintiff and Byung. Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a solatium of KRW 50 million and damages for delay.

2. Determination

A. According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 3-1, 2, 3, and 4 through 6 Eul evidence Nos. 1-2, 3-3, testimony of witness at the court of first instance, results of the first deliberation and arguments, the plaintiff and Byung were married under the law that reported marriage on April 29, 197, Byung, while serving as an executive officer of the defendant who operates △△△△△△△△△, with the thickness of the defendant who is running the △△△△△△△△, with the defendant's 1st century from May 2015 to August 2016, 2016, the defendant was concurrently registered with the defendant's 1st century and the defendant did not travel with the defendant Byung Byung on May 29, 201, together with the defendant's 2nd day on which he had been registered with other women Byung Byung Byung, and the defendant did not travel with other women Byung Byung Byung Byung on April 2, 2016.

However, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the above facts and the statement of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 submitted by the plaintiff alone constituted a fraudulent act between the defendant and the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit.

B. Meanwhile, if a married couple’s communal living was not divorced from one another, and the marital’s marital life was actually broken down and thus it is impossible to recover, even if the third party’s sexual act did not constitute an act infringing upon or interfering with the marital community life, and as such, it cannot be deemed an unlawful act. (See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu 2997, Nov. 20, 201). According to the written evidence evidence No. 5 and the purport of oral argument, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff and Byung used each room for more than 10 years before and actually committed a separate life at one’s house, and even if the agreement between the Plaintiff and Byung was reached on June 30, 2016, and the court did not reach an agreement on the division of property, and thus, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff’s failure was caused by the Plaintiff’s unlawful act as well as the Defendant’s failure to recover from the marital relationship.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed on the ground of its reason. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with some different conclusions, the part against the defendant in the judgment of first instance which accepted the defendant's appeal and revoked the part against the defendant in the judgment of first instance, and the plaintiff's claim against the revoked part is dismissed

Judge Lee Il-ju

Judge O Sang-hun

Judges Dogdogia