logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2019.12.05 2019가단76852
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 8,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from July 25, 2019 to December 5, 2019 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and Nonparty C are legally married couple who completed the marriage report on June 11, 2011.

B. Around June 2017, the Defendant became aware of C, and entered into an inhumanity relationship. On June 2018, the Defendant was well accommodated in the D hotel located in Incheon and the Gangseo-gu hotel located in Gangseo-gu, Seoul.

C. The Defendant filed a lawsuit for divorce (the Seoul Family Court 2018Ddan327300), and the Defendant’s spouse filed a lawsuit with C claiming compensation for damages caused by bad faith with the Defendant.

(Seoul Family Court F). [Grounds for Recognition] without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, 2, 8, and 10, Gap evidence 3 through 11, Gap evidence 3 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's defense of this case is in violation of Article 31 of the Attorney-at-Law Act and Article 22 of the Attorney-at-Law No. 31 of the Attorney-at-Law Act and Article 22 of the Attorney-at-Law's Ethical Code to act on behalf of

Article 31 (1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act prohibits the performance of duties of cases (Article 31 (1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act (Article 31 (1) of the Act) which are delegated by the other party to a case, other cases (Article 31 (1) of the Act) which are delegated by the other party to the case in question, public officials, mediators or arbitrators, and have

The defendant does not indicate where the plaintiff's agent's procedural acts fall under any of the above subparagraphs, but it appears to have violated the above subparagraph 2. Thus, since the parties to the Seoul Family Court and the parties to this case are completely different from the parties to this case, it cannot be deemed to fall under the above provisions. In addition, in the case of subparagraph 2, where the mandator of the case accepted with the case consents, the above provisions can perform his duties.

Even if the plaintiff and C agree, the plaintiff's attorney shall be the plaintiff's attorney.

arrow