beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Summary of the parties' assertion
A. On August 2015, the Plaintiff became a member of the store of the Defendant’s operation by the Defendant’s active proposal. Around August 2015, the Plaintiff started with the Defendant’s active Guide, and was pregnant at the age of 22 years with sexual intercourse, and decided to give birth in an difficult decision.
Nevertheless, when the Defendant came to know of the Plaintiff’s pregnancy on July 2016, the first instance court determined that the Plaintiff would divorce with the Plaintiff’s spouse. However, the Plaintiff changed the Plaintiff’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s her son’s son’s son’s son
Therefore, the defendant should pay to the plaintiff 50 million won and damages for delay caused by the tort.
B. Although the mind at the time of the Defendant’s teaching system with the Plaintiff was serious, it cannot be deemed that tort under the Civil Act is established as a correct decision in accordance with the purport of the maternity and family protection guaranteed by Article 36(1) of the Constitution to suspend teaching system with the Plaintiff and return to the Plaintiff at home as a married person’s status after the change.
In addition, the defendant is not written in sexual intercourse between the plaintiff and the plaintiff by the defendant's active desire, public peace, strong horses, and expression methods, and there is no sexual intercourse between the plaintiff and the plaintiff by promising to marry or by precluding marriage, and the defendant is expected to adopt the plaintiff's child born by the plaintiff.
2. Determination
A. According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments by Gap's evidence Nos. 3 through 7, the facts that the defendant (the 1986 birth) and the non-party C are the legal couple who completed the marriage report, and the plaintiff (the 1995 birth) are the mobile phone of "D" operated by the defendant around August 2015.