The case holding that the "unlawful act" under Article 840 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Act is deemed to be an "unlawful act" under Article 840 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Act because he/she did not have a duty of mutual assistance, although

The case holding that the "unlawful act" under Article 840 (1) of the Civil Act is deemed to be an "unlawful act" under Article 840 (1) of the Civil Act because it was impossible to be determined as a simple one, but did not

Article 840 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 87Meu5 and 6 (Gong1987, 1073) decided May 24, 1988 (Gong1988, 992) 92Meu68 decided Nov. 10, 1992 (Gong1993, 112)

A

B

Daegu High Court Decision 92Reu199 delivered on October 28, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that: (a) while attending the above church such as the Defendant C, the Plaintiff and the husband and wife of the lower judgment frequently entered the Defendant’s house from around 1987 to assist the Defendant in doing work; (b) C opened the restaurant around May 1990; and (c) thereafter, C was able to live far from the Plaintiff; (d) from time to time at the restaurant; (e) if the Defendant frequently opened the restaurant and opened the restaurant, and (e) took food necessary for the restaurant with the above restaurant with the Defendant C at latest at the time of the completion of the restaurant, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff did not have any legal duty to see that the Plaintiff and the wife did not have any error, and (e) the Defendant did not have any legal duty to see that the Defendant did not have any legal duty to see that the Defendant did not have any error, and (e) did not have any legal duty to see that the Defendant did not have any duty to her husband and wife, and (e) did not have any legal relation between C and the Defendant’s.

In light of the records and relevant evidence, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified, and there is no illegality that points out the theory of litigation, such as misconception of facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principles as to wrongful acts due to the violation of the rules of evidence, etc.

2. The court below's rejection of the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff was able to ex post facto use unfair acts by running a normal marital life with the above C, is justified in light of the records, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principles as to ex post facto employment. The precedents required for the theory of lawsuit are irrelevant to the above case. The issue of this issue is without merit.

3. The court below's determination of the amount of consolation money to be paid to the plaintiff as KRW 20,00,000 is reasonable in light of the records, taking into account the various circumstances in its holding, and therefore, there is no reason to argue that the amount is excessive.

4. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)