The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that the reason for reduction should not be considered as the reason for reduction in determining consolation money.

The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that, even if the agreement not to claim consolation money, etc. itself was reached by the wife's old-age, rashness, and in a state of coercion, or was not made in a state of coercion, it was concluded that the husband's assault and verbal abuse were motiveed, which led to the agreement becoming null and void by the agreement that the husband did not assault again, and if the agreement was concluded even after the agreement was reached and the husband did not commit an injury as stated in the judgment of the court below, and the marital relationship was finally broken down due to the husband's bodily injury as stated in the judgment of the court below, the circumstance that the wife agreed not to claim consolation money, etc. while deciding the amount of consolation money, etc. to be paid by the husband who is mainly responsible for the failure to divorce with the husband, can only be a document to measure that the husband's assault and verbal abuse was the extent that the wife is unable to cope with, and it does not be considered to reduce the amount of

Articles 806 and 843 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 10 others (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff

Defendant (Attorney Cho Jong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 95Reu14 delivered on October 26, 1995

The part of the judgment below against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the basic facts as stated in its judgment, and decided that the amount of consolation money that the plaintiff and the defendant agreed not to claim consolation money, etc. is reasonable in light of all the circumstances revealed in the arguments of this case, including the plaintiff and the defendant's period of marital life, age, occupation, family relationship, reason for failure of marital life, and the degree of contribution to divorce between the plaintiff and the defendant on October 6, 1993, but agreed not to claim consolation money, etc. in the future, although they agreed not to claim consolation money, etc., the court below reduced the amount of consolation money by determining that the amount of consolation money of this case is reasonable, and that the plaintiff and the defendant agreed not to claim consolation money, etc. from each other on October 6, 1993.

However, as recognized by the court below, the defendant committed verbal abuse and assault against the plaintiff even though it is so long as there is a dispute, and caused injury to the plaintiff as stated in the judgment of the court below. Even if around August 193, the defendant discussed his housework and threatened him with death of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was friendly by avoiding the defendant's assault, and the plaintiff was divorced from the plaintiff's friendship and agreed not to claim consolation money, etc. against the other party by promising the other party not to do so again on or around October 6, 1993, but the agreement that the plaintiff would not claim consolation money, etc. was decided by the defendant's agreement that the defendant would not do so again on or around the 17th day of the same month, and the defendant would not claim consolation money, etc. If it was committed by assault and verbal abuse of the defendant, which was committed by the defendant, and thus, it would be deemed that the defendant would not have agreed to do so again because it did not have any obligation to pay consolation money to the plaintiff again after the decision of the court below.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the plaintiff agreed not to claim consolation money on October 6, 1993 and agreed not to claim consolation money with the defendant around October 6, 1993, and considering this as the grounds for reduction in determining consolation money. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the circumstances that should consider the amount of consolation money in light of the fact that the court below erred in exercising its discretionary power, thereby pointing out

Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)