beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On May 12, 1995, the Plaintiff reported marriage with C.
B. The Plaintiff’s spouse opened a house on March 10, 2017, and resided in the fourth floor of the D Building in the Sungnam-si Subdivision.
C. On March 29, 2017, the Defendant entered 13:00 on the above underground parking lots, and went out 19:10 on April 19, 2017, and went out 00:20 on the following day. On May 21, 2017, the Defendant entered 11:45, and 18:10 on May 21, 201, and C was on board the Defendant’s vehicle at the above underground parking lots around 18:00.
C On April 3, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking divorce against the Plaintiff (Seoul District Court 2017ddan7014655), but the said court rendered a judgment dismissing C’s claim on October 25, 2018.
C appealed against this, it is pending in the appellate trial as of the date of the decision of the appellate court of this case.
(Ground for recognition 2018Reu3125). [Ground for recognition] The facts that there is no dispute between the parties to this Court, significant facts in this Court, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10, 53 (if any, including each of them; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s spouse C left on March 10, 2017, and the Defendant entered the notified telecom wherein C had resided more than 30 times from March 29, 2017 to May 21, 2017. On May 21, 2017, the Plaintiff’s spouse, upon entering the 11:45 public telecomforcing the 18:10 underground parking lot and the Defendant’s vehicle on the Defendant’s vehicle.
The above act of the defendant is an act with incompetence and constitutes a tort in relation to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff suffered a serious mental suffering, and the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money of KRW 50,000,000 and delay damages to the plaintiff.
3. First of all, as alleged by the Plaintiff, we examine whether the Defendant entered the 30-time public notice telecom with C’s residence from March 29, 2017 to May 21, 2017.
Gap evidence No. 27 shall be written and examined.