(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2019.01.11 2018가단63672

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2019.01.11 2018가단63672

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from August 29, 2018 to January 11, 2019, and the following.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 4, 2015, the Plaintiff is a legally married couple who completed the marriage report with C on August 4, 2015, and two minor children among them.

B. On August 23, 2017, the Defendant promised that the Plaintiff shall continue to be aware of and not re-explosible to the Plaintiff from August 2016 to May 2017, 2017, but continues to contact and contact with the Plaintiff by July 23, 2017. The Defendant may not communicate and contact with the Plaintiff on an absolute basis after August 23, 2017. The Plaintiff will be subject to any civil and criminal punishment if he/she has contact and contact with the Plaintiff after the next promise.”

(C) Around 3:41 on July 14, 2018, the Defendant, however, made a private telephone conversation with C and 4:30 on the same day. At around 4:30 on the same day, the Defendant also made a delivery. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, entries in Gap evidence 1-5, and the purport of the entire pleadings.]

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The gist of the defense is that the Plaintiff claims damages against the Defendant on the ground of fraudulent acts before and after the preparation of the instant written statement. Since each of the instant written statements constitutes the so-called 'sub-committee agreement', the part claiming damages on the facts that occurred before the preparation of the instant written statement is unlawful as it goes against the

B. Even if following the contents of the instant statement, it seems that the Plaintiff did not claim damages on or before August 23, 2017 against the Defendant, even if following the instant statement, and thus, the instant safety defense cannot be accepted.

3. Judgment on the merits

(a) A third party who has a liability for damages shall not interfere with a married couple’s communal living which corresponds to the nature of marriage, such as interfering with a couple’s communal living by causing a failure of the married couple’s communal living;

Husband's and wife's communal living which corresponds to the essence of marriage by a third party's illegal act with one side of the couple.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.08.10 2018가단55503

-인천지방법원 2018.01.17 2017가단236700

-대전지방법원천안지원 2017.09.13 2017가단105759

-인천지방법원 2019.01.23 2018가단18923

-의정부지방법원 2017.12.21 2017나210373