beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 2,00,000 to Plaintiff A; and (b) KRW 5% per annum from June 1, 2016 to November 15, 2016 to Plaintiff A.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Plaintiff A and Plaintiff B are married, and Plaintiff A had a inhumane relationship with Defendant’s spouse from August 2014.
B. From April 28, 2015 to September 10, 2015, the Defendant was indicted for committing an offense that “if the Plaintiff did not comply with the request of the Defendant, he/she would have known the Plaintiff’s workplace and failed to wear the Plaintiff, and was sentenced to a fine of KRW 3 million from this court on July 22, 2016 (this Court Decision 2010No393), but appealed on October 20, 2016, and became final and conclusive on October 20, 2016.
C. Meanwhile, on the ground of the Plaintiff’s wrongful act with D, the Defendant filed a claim for solatium with D and the Plaintiff for a divorce with the court 2015da5979, and on June 3, 2016, the Defendant rendered a judgment that “Plaintiff A shall jointly pay KRW 30 million to the Defendant and its delay damages.”
[Ground of recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence 1 to 10, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. Although a civil trial on a claim against the plaintiff A is not bound by the finding of facts in a criminal trial, the facts found guilty of the same facts are valuable evidence, and the facts against the defendant cannot be acknowledged unless there are special circumstances where it is acknowledged that it is difficult to adopt a judgment on facts in a criminal trial in light of other evidence submitted in the civil trial (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da69148, 69155, Feb. 14, 2008). According to the above facts, the defendant's tort against the plaintiff A is recognized, and therefore, the defendant's tort against the plaintiff A is liable for compensation for damages caused to the plaintiff A due to the defendant's tort.
Furthermore, regarding the scope of damages, this case is about the Health Council.