beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Around November 6, 1989, the defendant delivered birth of Cirriend D (name E before the opening of the name) to the plaintiff by marriage with the plaintiff.
Even though the defendant was pregnant by another person's child through an illegal act, around July 1991, the defendant deceivings the plaintiff that he was pregnant by the plaintiff, and born D. The plaintiff was in a condition that it is impossible to be pregnant by receiving a diagnosis of a shot tuberculosis prior to that time.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the solatium amounting to 49.5 million won (the amount calculated by the Defendant from July 1991 to December 2016, 1991, which was the amount that was calculated by the Defendant’s deception of the Plaintiff, by 5.00 won per day) and damages for delay.
(Plaintiff expressed his/her wish to claim KRW 302,851,022 in the annexed Form of the preparatory document dated October 18, 2017, but accordingly, it did not expand the purport of the claim. Thus, it is deemed that the claim is made in accordance with the purport of the claim stated in the written complaint. 2.
A. According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 4, 8, 10, 11, and 12 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the plaintiff and the defendant reported their marriage on February 10, 199, and the defendant born C. D on February 10, 199, and the plaintiff and D were born at C. The plaintiff and the defendant did not have a natural relationship with D. The plaintiff and the defendant designated a person with parental authority of D and agreed to divorce with the defendant and reported their divorce on November 13, 2002. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit of denial of paternity against D on July 11, 2015, and the plaintiff was declared to deny that they are the father of the plaintiff's father (the defendant's family court within the Suwon District Court Decision 2015Nu5324, Nov. 11, 2016), and that the plaintiff believed that the plaintiff was the father's father's own child at around the time of the plaintiff's action of denial of paternity.
B. However, in full view of the following circumstances, which can be recognized by the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 through 12 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant is the Plaintiff’s natural father around July 191.