2019dboard 205523 Compensation (as referred to in this paragraph)

A

Section B.

July 24, 2019

August 28, 2019

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 30,00,000 won as consolation money with 15% interest per annum from the service day of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is a legally married couple who completed the marriage report on August 12, 1996 at the same time, and has her child and her child under the sleep.

B. The defendant is in a de facto marital relationship with his child and has a light.

C. C. Since the marriage with the Plaintiff, Byung gradually began to be separated from around 2015, since the relationship with the Plaintiff is the source of litigation.

D. On March 2015, the Defendant came to know that he was sick on March 2, 2015, and thereafter, the Defendant was pregnant and became pregnant, and on October 2015, a marriage ceremony was raised concurrently.

E. At the time of marriage between the defendant and the non-party Byung, the parents did not attend the marriage ceremony, and the non-party Byung attended the marriage ceremony instead of the non-party Byung, and even after marriage, the non-party Byung reported the marriage on the grounds of business.

F. The Defendant asked Byung to enter Byung's medical insurance dependent with the fact that the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, and the Defendant were registered as the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, and the Defendant. However, Byung asked Byung to “if the Plaintiff becomes bankrupt or the medical insurance was not included, the Plaintiff would have been asked to correct the medical insurance under the name of his father's thickness because of the lack of circumstances.” The Defendant presented to the Defendant a forged family relation register that was registered as the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, and the Defendant requesting the re-verification, without being registered as the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, and the non-registered children.

G. On October 16, 2018, Byung filed a lawsuit of judicial divorce against the plaintiff on the ground that Byung is a responsible spouse, but the grounds for divorce for Byung's principal are not recognized, and Byung loses the judgment on the ground that Byung is a responsible spouse.

The above judgment was rendered and became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence 1 to 10, Eul evidence 1 to 7 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the body before oral argument

2. Determination

A. Our argument

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was responsible for compensating the plaintiff for mental damage since the defendant committed a fraudulent act that maintains a mixed de facto marital relationship even though he was aware that he was the spouse of Byung. The defendant asserted to the purport that the plaintiff's assertion is unfair since Byung was served with the copy of the complaint in this case that he was the spouse of Byung and became aware of the fact before that was not known.

B. Determination

In light of the fact that the defendant was aware of the fact that Byung was the spouse at the time of the illegal act, the facts of the above recognition are as follows: ① The defendant stated that Byung was the spouse at the time of marriage, and ② although the defendant and Byung were the non-party Byung's marriage ceremony, the defendant stated that Byung was the spouse at the time of marriage.

In light of the circumstances such as the fact that the Defendant did not attend this meeting but the Plaintiff was present at the medical insurance unit, the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, and the Non-Party C, and the Non-Party C was confirmed to have been registered as a non-party C, it cannot be concluded that the Defendant maintained a mal relationship by concurrently knowing that the Defendant was a spouse, and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff is insufficient to recognize it and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Dong-ho