2016 Ghana 522845 Damages

A

Law Firm Roum et al., Counsel for the defendant

Attorney Park Young-young

B

Attorney Yoon Jung-jin, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

Attorney Park Jong-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

June 21, 2018

August 9, 2018

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part concerning the claim for damages caused by the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Kameras, Use and gara) and intimidation shall

2. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 10,145,001 and KRW 10,000 among them, the amount of KRW 10,00 from January 9, 2008; KRW 145,001, the amount of KRW 5% per annum from January 4, 2014 to August 9, 2018; and KRW 15% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

3. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

4. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

5. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 40,145,001 won and 40,000,000 won among them, 5% per annum from January 9, 2008 to the service date of a copy of each complaint of this case, 5% per annum from January 4, 2014 to the service date of a copy of each complaint of this case, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Determination ex officio as to the claim for damages caused by the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Kameras, Use and Screening of Cameras, etc.)

(a) Facts of recognition;

On January 6, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the Suwon Police Station for the following reasons: (a) on January 6, 2014, the Defendant threatened the Plaintiff’s family members, etc. to send photographs taken by the Plaintiff’s body.

The police officer in charge conducted an investigation by hearing the statements of the plaintiff and the defendant and confirmed evidence, and transferred the case to the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office on the grounds that the defendant violated the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Kamera Use Screening) and the suspicion of intimidation is recognized.

On February 10, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant attended the date of the first criminal conciliation at the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office held in the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office on February 10, 2014, and agreed not to contact the Plaintiff any longer and immediately delete C et al. materials and not to make any subsequent intimidation, etc., and the Plaintiff withdrawn the complaint against the Defendant and agreed not to raise any civil or criminal objection (hereinafter referred to as the "agreement of this case").

On February 21, 2014, the public prosecutor in charge of the above case suspended the indictment on the ground that the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent not to have the Defendant punished on February 10, 2014, on the grounds that the Plaintiff expressed his/her intention not to have the Defendant punished, and as to intimidation, this case cannot be punished against the victim’s express intention. On February 10, 2014, the public prosecutor issued a disposition not to institute the prosecution on the ground that the Plaintiff expressed his/her intention not to have the Defendant punished.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 24, 26, Eul evidence No. 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Determination

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that on February 10, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed not to claim for damages against the Defendant’s violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Kameras, Use and Screening of Cameras, etc.) and intimidation. Therefore, the above part of the lawsuit in this case is filed against the agreement to file a lawsuit, and it is unlawful as there is no benefit in the protection of rights.

As to this, the Plaintiff asserted that the agreement in this case constitutes an unfair legal act under Article 104 of the Civil Act, and thus null and void, as it constitutes an unfair legal act under Article 104 of the Civil Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the limited Defendant, on the premise of marriage for five years at the Criminal Mediation Office on February 10, 2014, has belonged to himself/herself as a father-child.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 10, the facts at the time when the defendant associates with the plaintiff, but the plaintiff was aware of the defendant as a divorce by January 6, 2014. However, it is difficult to deny the validity of the agreement in the criminal conciliation procedure due to the circumstances alleged by the plaintiff (in accordance with the result of the examination of the plaintiff himself/herself, the plaintiff became aware of the fact that the defendant was the defendant before February 10, 2014, which is the date of the agreement in this case).

In addition, the plaintiff argues that the agreement of this case is invalid or invalid because it violated the terms and conditions of the agreement of this case, since the agreement of this case is invalid or the assertion of the agreement of this case is invalid or invalid because it constitutes abuse of rights.

According to the records in Gap evidence No. 24, the defendant's criminal conciliation protocol dated February 10, 2014 can be acknowledged that "the defendant misleads the plaintiff, tells the plaintiff on the same day, deleted all articles stored in the Kameras as the plaintiff's request, and gather one thing with respect to the plaintiff C or the plaintiff in custody, and only agree with each other on the condition that any contact is prohibited even by telephone or telephone, and withdraw a complaint." However, if the above facts appear in the above facts, the defendant's examination results can be acknowledged as follows: at the place where there is a criminal conciliation assistance officer on February 10, 2014 at the criminal conciliation protocol, it is reasonable to view that the contents of the above criminal conciliation protocol were written by the defendant to the plaintiff on the same day. In addition, it is difficult to view that the defendant's communication or threat to the plaintiff by any means after the agreement of this case constitutes abuse of rights against the plaintiff's workplace, which is a part of the plaintiff's workplace or its abuse of rights.

The plaintiff's assertion is not accepted.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The defendant introduced himself to the plaintiff as having more than 4 children and one of the children to be divorced, and the plaintiff and the defendant committed a school relationship on the premise of marriage, but the defendant used the name of the defendant, had more than 9 children, and more than 2 children, and they were still married under the law of the plaintiff.

On February 2014, the Plaintiff became aware of the fact that the Defendant was the father of his body in the course of investigating the crime that the Defendant had taken the Plaintiff’s body, and that the Defendant was the father of his body.

Since the defendant committed a tort against the plaintiff during the course of marriage, it is obligated to pay consolation money, and since it has damaged the plaintiff's mobile phone, it is obligated to compensate for 145,001 won for the cost of repairing mobile phone.

B. Determination

1) Facts of recognition

On September 2008, the Plaintiff and the Defendant began to associate with the Defendant, which became aware of through Internet community, which was divorced by a person who was divorced in September 2008. On November 9, 2008, the Plaintiff and the Defendant had sexual intercourse for the first time with the Defendant. The Defendant belonged to the name, age, number of children, etc. of the Defendant in the first half of the Plaintiff and the teaching assistants. After that, the Plaintiff became aware of, but the Defendant continued to associate with the Defendant.

Around December 12, 2013, the Defendant donated the Plaintiff a pro rata, and around that time, the Defendant continued to engage in a pro rata relationship with the Plaintiff on a one-month basis on the premise of marriage.

Since then, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to take a halthothic step against the Plaintiff’s continuous preparation for marriage. On January 4, 2014, the Defendant destroyed the amount of galthothic plane purification of cell phones 145,001, which was owned by the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff recorded the conversation in a cellular phone and destroyed the amount of galthothal juno 2 mobile phone owned by the Plaintiff.

On January 2014, the Plaintiff was investigated by the police station about the above property damage case, and the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant was the father, but was the father of the divorce.

The defendant was ordered to form a fine of KRW 300,000 due to the above property damage by Suwon District Court No. 2014 High Court Decision No. 201374, and the above punishment was finalized around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 and 10, witness D's testimony, examination result of the plaintiff himself/herself, purport of the whole pleadings

2) Determination

The right to sexual self-determination refers to the right of selecting the other party and having a sexual relationship under his/her own responsibility based on his/her own sexual values and based on his/her own decision made based on his/her own decision. In principle, whether a female has a sexual relationship is determined by himself/herself and the liability incidental thereto is in principle. However, the right to sexual self-determination refers to the right to choose the other party and have a sexual relationship at his/her free will without undue interference, and furthermore, in light of the perception of marriage and sexual act in our society, evaluation thereof, etc., whether the other party is a married person is a very important basis in selecting the other party to enter into a sexual relationship. Whether the other party is a married person or not is a married person. The act of either actively notifying the other party of a false fact about his/her marriage or inducing the other party explicitly or implicitly to omit his/her mistake constitutes a tort that infringes on the other party’s sexual self-determination.

As seen earlier, it is clear in light of the empirical rule that the Plaintiff was suffering from mental distress due to the Plaintiff’s becoming aware of the fact that the Defendant was the father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father

Furthermore, active damages to be paid by the Defendant shall be KRW 145,00,000, and the amount of consolation money to be paid by the Defendant shall be determined as KRW 10,000,000, taking into consideration the various circumstances shown in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the Plaintiff’s educational system and period of the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s behavior, the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s age, the Plaintiff’s psychological impulse, and the

Therefore, with respect to the Plaintiff KRW 10,145,001 and KRW 10,000 among them, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at each rate of KRW 15% per annum under the Civil Act from January 9, 2008, which is the date of tort, to January 4, 2014, which is deemed reasonable to dispute over the existence of the obligation and the scope of the obligation of performance by each Defendant from January 4, 2014, to August 9, 2018, which is the date of this decision, and from the next day to the date of full payment, 5% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, among the instant lawsuits, the part concerning the claim for damages caused by the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Kamerasation) and intimidation is dismissed, and the claim of this case is partially accepted.

Judge Rostering