2016dern 212032 Consolation Money and Compensation for Damages (unfair de facto destruction)

A (1987.00000)

Address

Reference domicile

Attorney Lee Do-young

1. B (the life in 1985, the remaining life in 198);

Address

Place of service

Attorney Lee Do-young

2. Sick (Sick, 1989)

Address

Place of service

Attorney Lee Do-young

August 23, 2017

September 6, 2017

1. The Plaintiff shall be consolation money, the amount of KRW 30 million for Defendant Eul, and the amount of KRW 10 million for Defendant Byung, jointly and severally with Defendant Eul, shall be paid 5% per annum from December 20, 2016 to September 6, 2017, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims for consolation money and the plaintiff's claim for division of property against the defendant Eul are dismissed, respectively.

3. 1/2 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, 1/2 by the Defendants, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendants jointly and severally serve 30 million won as consolation money on the plaintiff and the plaintiff with a complaint of this case.

C. D. Payment of 15% interest per annum from the following day to the day of full payment. Defendant B shall be the Plaintiff

Property division of 45 million won and its payment shall be made from the day after this judgment becomes final and conclusive to the day after full payment is made.

5% interest per annum shall be paid.

1. Determination on the claim of consolation money against the Defendants

A. The facts of recognition (1) and the Plaintiff and Defendant B entered the school from around September 2009, only at one farm abroad.

3. After returning to the Republic of Korea, Defendant B retired from the Republic of Korea on January 2013, 2013 * is employed in the Cooperative * work at a branch * the Plaintiff, who worked in Seoul, was also employed in the Bank located in Ulsan on August 2013, 201.

(2) On November 21, 2015, the Plaintiff and Defendant B got married in Ulsan. (3) On ordinary day due to the issue of work place even after the marriage ceremony, the Plaintiff was living in the family of Ulsan, and Defendant B was living in Busan apartment (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) located in the new marriage house, and the Plaintiff was living in the apartment of this case as the apartment of this case after the departure of the day, and the Plaintiff was living in the family of this case with Defendant B, together with Defendant B to work in the workplace of Ulsan on a day. (4) On October 2016, the Plaintiff was suspected of committing an unlawful act by reporting the text message among the Defendants. The Plaintiff, Defendant B, Plaintiff’s mother, Defendant mother, and Defendant’s mother.

10. 24. 이 사건 아파트에서 만난 자리에서 피고 을은 ' ( 피고 병와 ) 만난 지 두 달 되었고, 뭘 하려는 생각은 없었으며, 퇴근하고 나서 같이 커피 한 잔 하는 사이였다 ' 라는 취지로 이야기하였다. 피고 을은 카카오톡 메시지로 어떻게 바람을 피냐고 따지는 원고에게 2016. 10. 25. ' 미안하다, 내가 미쳤던 것 같다. 직원들이 아직 지점장님한테는 말 안 한 것 같다. ' 라는 내용으로 답하였다. 원고는 이 무렵 피고 병에게도 언제부터 만났는지 추궁하였는데, 피고 병은 두 달을 넘지 않는다고 답하였다 . ( 5 ) 피고들이 근무하는 * * 조합 * * 지점의 전체 직원은 2017. 4. 4. 기준 8명이다. 피고 을은 2013. 1. 7. 부터 현재까지 위 * * 지점에서, 피고 병은 2014. 7. 3. 부터 2017. 1 .

10. up to 10. The above* worked at * points.

(6) The Defendants: (a) provided meals as a meal after the retirement; or (b) provided coffee; and (c) provided very frequently contact with the Defendants from around April 10, 2016 to October 27, 2016 by the Plaintiff, which verified the Defendants’ misconduct, including telephone communications on 655 occasions.

(7) Although Defendant B indicated that the act of misconduct was revealed to the Plaintiff, the contact with the Plaintiff was gradually avoided, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant are living separately in their respective houses.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Gap evidence No. 13, * The inquiry inquiry reply to the union, and the whole purport of oral argument

B. Determination

(1) In the instant lawsuit, the Defendants asserted that they were aware of from August 2016 at the first time (see, e.g., legal brief from March 20, 2017) and responded to that purport even when they were forced to commit an unlawful act around October 2016 from the Plaintiff, but it appears that Defendant C was aware of the Defendants’ work since July 3, 2014, since the entire employees of the Defendants’ work place were merely eight, and the Defendants were to have known of the fact that it appears that the Defendants made false statements to be known from around August 2016 were to reduce the period and degree of unlawful acts. In fact, the Defendants, from around April 2016, were provokingd with telephone calls from time to time, and were unable to recover money from the Plaintiff and Defendant C’s work to the extent that they did not have any specific duty to recover from their marriage, in light of the fact that there was no conflict between the Plaintiff and the Defendants.

(2) According to the whole purport of evidence Nos. 5 and 10 of evidence Nos. 5 and 10, the plaintiff used approximately KRW 50 million for marriage and marriage expenses. However, as determined by the following paragraph (2), the plaintiff's claim for division of property against the apartment of this case is not accepted. As the plaintiff's claim for division of property against the apartment of this case is not accepted, the amount equivalent to the expenses paid by the plaintiff for marriage is unnecessary and unnecessary. The period during which the plaintiff and the defendant Eul were in a de facto marital relationship with the plaintiff, the defendant was in a de facto marital relationship with the plaintiff, and the defendant Eul was in a de facto marital relationship with his principal mistake. Nor is there there there is any serious reason or consideration against the plaintiff. Rather, the defendant criticizes the plaintiff who was responsible for the failure, and the defendant Byung also did not properly reflect and reflect the plaintiff's failure due to his own unlawful act, and the defendant Byung did not pay consolation money as 30 million won jointly and severally with the defendant Byung, considering various circumstances revealed in the argument of this case.

C. Sub-committee

As consolation money to the Plaintiff, Defendant B is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Civil Act from December 20, 2016, which is the day following the delivery of the complaint in this case, to the Plaintiff as to the above amount of KRW 10 million and each of the above amounts, jointly and severally with Defendant B, from December 20, 2016, to September 6, 2017, which is deemed reasonable for the Defendants to dispute on the existence and scope of the obligation to perform, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the day of full payment.

2. Determination as to the claim for division of property

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff paid approximately KRW 50 million for marriage with Defendant B, the management expenses and public charges of the apartment of this case, and the communal living expenses in Busan, and the fact that the Plaintiff was engaged in domestic activities at the weekend, and that the money actually invested by Defendant B for the purchase of the apartment of this case is merely KRW 60 million, the Plaintiff has a property division claim against the property that was formed and maintained while maintaining a matrimonial relationship for about one year with Defendant B, and the Plaintiff’s contribution is 50%.

Property subject to division between the plaintiff and the defendant Eul is the only apartment of this case. The value of the apartment of this case is at least 280 million won, and the loan obligation of the defendant Eul is at least 190 million won, and the debt of the defendant Eul is at least 190 million won, and the defendant Eul shall pay the plaintiff the property division amount of KRW 45 million out of the net property value.

B. Determination

According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 11 and the whole purport of the oral argument, defendant Eul acquired the apartment of this case on November 12, 2015, and the purchase price of KRW 60 million out of the purchase price of KRW 25 million shall be supported by defendant Eul's mother, 150 million shall be provided by the new bank's collateral loan, and the remaining KRW 40 million shall be provided by defendant Eul's credit loan. According to the above facts of recognition, it is recognized that the plaintiff has not contributed to the acquisition of the apartment of this case.

According to the purport of the statement and pleading No. 14, the Plaintiff is recognized as paying KRW 1,316,90 in total as management fees, public charges, etc. of the instant apartment from around December 2015 to October 2016. However, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s 11-month management fees, public charges, etc. paid a small amount of KRW 1,20,000 per month, the Plaintiff also lives in the instant apartment at the weekend, the period of de facto marriage of the Plaintiff and Defendant B is less than 11 months, and the period of de facto marriage of the Plaintiff and Defendant A lived at the weekend couple during the de facto marriage period is less than 11 months, and the Defendant also paid their income and expenses for marriage, etc., and it is difficult to recognize the relationship between the Plaintiff’s expenses for marriage and mixed water and the maintenance of the instant apartment, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff prevented the decrease in property or cooperation in property increase.

It is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff contributed to the formation and maintenance of the property with respect to the apartment of this case raised by Defendant B as the mother’s support and loan. Therefore, the apartment of this case cannot be considered as the property division subject to the Defendant B’s special property. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion claiming 50% of the real value of the apartment of this case as the property division on a different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim for consolation money shall be accepted within the extent of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as there is no ground, and the plaintiff's claim for division of property shall be dismissed as there

Judges Yoon Jae-nam