logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.10.05 2018가단55183
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is liable to pay consolation money to the plaintiff, because he committed an unlawful act with the knowledge that C is a father/son, thereby infringing the plaintiff's marital life and inflicted mental suffering on the plaintiff.

As to this, the defendant asserts that C did not infringe upon the plaintiff's communal living because C did not know that it was the father and son.

B. If a person who is aware of the fact that he/she is a person with a judgment spouse commits an unlawful act and thereby causes the failure of the marriage, a person who commits an unlawful act constitutes a tort against his/her spouse, and thereby, is obliged to inflict mental suffering on his/her spouse.

On October 8, 2016, the Plaintiff and C are de facto marital couple with marriage awareness, and the fact that the Defendant came to know from around December 2017 and maintained the dual relationship for a certain period of time may be recognized by taking full account of the overall purport of the pleadings and records and images of evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including the serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) without dispute between the parties, or on the whole purport of the pleadings.

However, in light of the following circumstances, the written evidence No. 1-13, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings, was known that the Defendant had a spouse at the time, solely on the written evidence No. 3.

It is insufficient to view that it was or could have been known, and there is no other evidence to prove it.

Therefore, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s claim on a different premise without examining the remaining issues.

① While the Defendant and C receive text messages, etc. on marriage, there is no fact that the conversation between the Plaintiff and C regarding the arrangement of de facto marriage relations between the Plaintiff and C has been divided.

It is difficult to see that the other party was aware of his/her spouse.

(2) C shall name, age, family relationship, etc. of the principal to the defendant.

arrow