beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Summary of the parties' assertion
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff is a legally married couple who married with C and completed the marriage report on December 2, 1999. The Defendant is obligated to pay the amount of money stated in the purport of the claim as compensation for mental suffering suffered by the Plaintiff, since the Plaintiff committed an unlawful act, such as having a marital relationship and having a sexual relationship, even though he/she was aware that he/she was married with C and was a person who formed a family by marriage in 2016.
B. The gist of the Defendant’s argument is that the Defendant first sent C at a singing room in 2018, which is the relationship between the customer and his employee, and there is no teaching restriction. However, on or around December 2018, the Defendant requested that C, under the influence of alcohol, wishes to divide a conversation outside of the country while engaging in “herculous drinking,” such as “herculing it is difficult for C to do so.” Although the Defendant was written at the face of his mind, it is only that C did not have a sexual intercourse but did not have a sexual intercourse. Thus, the Defendant did not know that C is a person in a marital relationship, and there was no wrongful act, and thus, he cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s request.
2. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that C had already known of the marital relationship at the time when the Defendant sent C with C the Kakakao Stockholm message or sent it to the Moel with C, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
Furthermore, it is difficult to view that there is a legal duty of care by examining whether a male and female spouse exists in a gender relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu19, Aug. 18, 1987). Even when comprehensively considering all the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff’s marital life has broken down due to an intentional or negligent act committed by the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.