Whether or not a person who spawns and spawns the adultery can claim consolation money due to infringement of father's right.

In case where a father uses a gap with another person in advance and later distributes it to his wife, it cannot be said that the right of the father, which is the right of the power of the power of the adjustment to his wife, has been infringed, so the other party of the Tong cannot claim consolation money from the other party.

Articles 750 and 751 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] 67Da1134 decided Oct. 6, 1967 (Article 750(109) of the Civil Act, Article 750(109), Article 2096, Article 15 third citizen195)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Gwangju District Court of the first instance (4292 Civil Joint 46)

The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff through the first and second trials.

The defendant (appellant)'s attorney is seeking a judgment in the order Dong branch, and the plaintiff (appellant)'s attorney is seeking a judgment of rejection of prosecution.

The actual assertion of both parties is that the defendant's legal representative was opened to the non-party 1, who is the plaintiff's wife at the time when the plaintiff was admitted to the Sosando Hospital on October 4287, the court below stated that the defendant's legal representative should raise the plaintiff's children and live together even at the time when the plaintiff was admitted to the Sondo Hospital on the short-term 4287.10, and that the defendant's legal representative was used for the adultery. The plaintiff was selected from the Sondo Island on August 18, 4281, which was 9.15,00 won after the plaintiff returned 10,000 won from the defendant's wife in the front of the non-party 1 and Dong residents' names, and the defendant's his wife was relieved of the plaintiff's family's death, and the defendant and the non-party 1 should live as a small definition of house, and the plaintiff's legal representative should be cited as it is for the same person.

As a evidence, the plaintiff's attorney invoked the testimony of the non-party 2 and 3 of the court below, and denies the purpose of the evidence of subparagraph 1, while the defendant's attorney submitted the evidence of subparagraph 1, used the testimony of the non-party 4 and 5 of the court below, and sought the summons of the non-party 1 and the non-party 6 of the witness in the court of appeal.

The facts that the Defendant gave birth to 11 South and North Korea during the short-term period from 4287.10 to 2007 are without dispute between the parties. If the testimony of Non-party 1, 4, 5, and 6, etc. is comprehensively taken place with the witness Eul who was the wife of the Plaintiff, then the Plaintiff was asked to keep the life of the Plaintiff’s family at the time of confinement at 287.10 to 200, so the non-party was unable to reverse the evidence of Non-party 1’s life, and the Defendant was unable to give birth to the Plaintiff through Non-party 5’s witness who was the wife of the Plaintiff, and the testimony of Non-party 1, 4, 5, and 5, and 6, etc. of Non-party 1, who was the witness of Non-party 2, who was the witness of Non-party 2, who was the witness of Non-party 2, 300,000 after 2,000.

If it is true whether the plaintiff used a gap with the other party in advance against the non-party 1, and the defendant paid attention to the defendant later, so even if the defendant passed with the plaintiff's wife, this cannot be said to have infringed the plaintiff's right to self-determination, which is the right to demand adjustment of the plaintiff's right to self-determination, and therefore, it cannot be said that the plaintiff suffered mental suffering, and therefore the plaintiff cannot be said to have caused mental suffering, and therefore there is no right to claim consolation money against

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is unfair, so the original judgment which differs from this result is unfair, and the case is reasonable, so the original judgment is revoked in accordance with Article 386 of the Civil Procedure Act and the costs of the lawsuit are decided in accordance with Article 95 and Article 89 of the same Act.

Judges Kim Byung-su (Presiding Judge)