2010 Ghana 57515 Baca

오○○ (xXXXXX-XXXXXxx )

Gwangju Seo-gu 00 Dong-gu - -

Law Firm Barun Law LLC

Attorney Han-sung

Dogar

전남 영암군 00읍 00리 - 000♡♡ ◆◆◆

Attorney Park Hong-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

November 10, 2010

November 24, 2010

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 30 million won with 5% interest per annum from the delivery date of the complaint of this case to the delivery date of the complaint of this case and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts as follows as the cause of the claim of this case.

A. On January 5, 2010, the Plaintiff was introduced as a white seafarer with expertise in double-line (name in unknown name) and was first met on January 5, 2010 (the birth of 1969). The Plaintiff was unable to refuse the Defendant’s demand and was under the influence of alcohol as a marriage relative and was under the influence of alcohol.

B. Afterwards, the Plaintiff and the Defendant established a sexual intercourse at the her mother’s home with the premise of marriage. From March 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a sexual intercourse at the Plaintiff’s home with the her mother’s home, which had been married. However, if the Plaintiff was aware of pregnancy, the Defendant was aware that she would have caused her child to be pregnant.

C. In addition, on May 2010, the Plaintiff asked the Defendant at any time to determine the marriage period when he was married, while having the Plaintiff’s parents in the early May 2010. The Defendant avoided a clear answer to marriage while maintaining a simple and easy relationship, and the Plaintiff considered that there is no reason to maintain the balance with the Defendant, and arranged the relationship with the Defendant.

D. However, on May 2010, approximately two weeks later, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to re-enter the Plaintiff by phone. From May 2010 to May 201, the Plaintiff continued to have a sex relationship with the Plaintiff at the original house as before.

E. However, since then, the Defendant only demanded a sex relationship, and the head of the Plaintiff was not bad, and avoided specific references to marriage. On August 17, 2010, the Plaintiff made a false statement that the Defendant was pregnant by phoneing to the Defendant around 14:00 to verify the Defendant’s truth, and the Defendant was dead and hedging, and after this day, the Plaintiff and the Defendant came to be hedging with each other.

F. In full view of the circumstances in which the Plaintiff continued to engage in a sexual intercourse with the Defendant and continued to engage in a sexual intercourse, and the circumstances in which the Defendant viewed the Plaintiff’s marriage as well as the Plaintiff’s marriage-related talked with the Plaintiff, the Defendant, even without the Plaintiff’s intention to marrying the Plaintiff, deceiving the Defendant as if he had the intention to marry for his sexual distress, and thereby, the Plaintiff was not only infringed upon the right to emotional distress, but also suffered irrecoverable mental damage, such as receiving treatment by a depression, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff entirely.

2. Determination,

A. The right to sexual self-determination refers to the right to choose the other party under his/her own responsibility and to have a sexual relationship based on his/her own self-determination on the basis of the personality of his/her own choice, etc. The right to sexual self-determination refers to the right to choose the other party and to have a sexual relationship under his/her own responsibility according to the self-determination of his/her own decision. Although women demand the other party's sexual act in the course of promising marriage, it is judged by themselves whether the other party's sexual relationship should have a sexual relationship, and the liability corresponding thereto should be borne by himself/herself. As a matter of principle, it cannot be deemed as a tort by the other male merely because he/she entered into a sexual relationship or was pregnant due to it. Furthermore, only in exceptional circumstances where a male has taken advantage of a weapon that is the most married after his/her own gender and planned approach, he/she can claim damages, etc. on the premise of satisfying the general requirements for the establishment of an illegal act.

B. It is not sufficient to recognize that the Defendant, solely on the sole basis of the descriptions of the Health Team and Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 10 (including the branch numbers) with respect to the instant case, caused the Plaintiff to have maliciously induced the Plaintiff by pretending marriage for the purpose of establishing a sexual relationship with the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Rather, in light of the above evidence and the overall purport of oral argument, the following circumstances: (i) the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was made by mutual agreement not by coercion or deception of the Defendant from the beginning, but by mutual agreement between the two; (ii) the Defendant has de facto sexual intercourse with the Plaintiff without conviction as to marriage with the Plaintiff; (iii) the difference between opinions appears to have been continued within the teaching period; (iv) the Plaintiff’s false statement that the Plaintiff was pregnant was the opportunity for the Plaintiff to take advantage of one another; (iv) it is not impossible to deny that the Defendant made a statement to the Plaintiff regarding marriage; and (v) it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant did not have any more active and conclusive experience, such as introducing the Plaintiff’s parents and other family members or informing the Plaintiff of the marriage plan; and (v) it is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff’s sexual intercourse was a more active and conclusive circumstance, not the Plaintiff’s sexual intercourse with the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff’s sexual intercourse with the Plaintiff, and that the Defendant did not reach the age of the Defendant’s occupation.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Kim Jin-hwan