logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2020.11.25 2020가단111132
손해배상(기)
Text

The defendant's KRW 10,00,000 for the plaintiff and its 5% per annum from July 30, 2019 to November 25, 2020.

Reasons

According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, 7, and 14, the defendant and Eul and the defendant may recognize the fact that the annual members set up and use the "Between" generally used in private spaces, use the words generally referred to among the persons in that space, communicate with each other, registered photographs fit for each other, registered by C and the defendant with the pictures fit for each other, the fact that C and the defendant sent Jeju-do travel to the defendant's office, and that C sent time by two separate persons.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant seems to have committed an unlawful act, including sexual intercourse with C even though he knows that C is the father and son, and thereby, the defendant committed an unlawful act against the plaintiff, so he is liable for damages against the plaintiff.

In addition, the plaintiff and C's marriage period, the existence of a minor, the degree, frequency, and period of the defendant and C's misconduct, and the plaintiff also committed an improper act on or around June 2015, and accordingly, the defendant's letter and the facts leading to the marital relationship shall be determined as KRW 10,000,000 in consideration of all the facts, etc.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated by the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from July 30, 2019 to November 25, 2020, which is the date of the judgment of this case, and 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment, to the date of the judgment of this case, as the last day of the period during which it is deemed reasonable to dispute the existence or scope of the defendant's obligation to pay to the plaintiff as a result of the above illegal act.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as there is no ground.

arrow