2012 Ghana 32535 damages (ar)

Park ○

Busan East-gu

Law Firm Cheong-do, Attorney Choi Byung-il, Counsel for defendant-appellant

1. Ma○○;

2. Kim○-○

The defendants' address Busan Sok-gu

[Judgment of the court below]

2012.|10.

January 7, 2013

1. The Defendants shall pay each of the Plaintiff 490,00 won with 5% interest per annum from May 8, 2012 to January 7, 2013, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

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

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant of the Gu office shall pay to each plaintiff 22,830,700 won with 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 201, 201, the Plaintiff and Defendant Jeong-○ came to know of the adoption of Defendant Jong-dong by Defendant Jong-dong around the end of November, 201, and began to return to death from around that time. On January 1, 2012, on April 15, 2012, the Plaintiff and Defendant Jeong-○ decided to enter into marriage in the ○○ funeral hall located in Busan.

B. On March 14, 2012, the Defendants unilaterally notified the Plaintiff of the marriage, and accordingly, the marriage ceremony was born.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Gap evidence 7-1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. Regarding the claim of consolation money

1) The parties' assertion

A) The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s parents agreed to marry as above with the Defendants and notified them to the neighbors. The Defendants unilaterally notified the marriage and reversed the marriage agreement, and the Plaintiff suffered severe mental distress. Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to pay KRW 10,000,000 to each Plaintiff as consolation money.

B) The defendants' assertion

① Although the Plaintiff’s loss was not an employee of the Egyptive Center, the Defendants directly operated the Egyptive Center; ② its nature was very violent; ③ the Plaintiff’s mother was in an inappropriate relationship with the operator of the Egyptive Center working for the Plaintiff; and accordingly, it is justifiable as the Defendants notified the Plaintiff of the marriage.

2) Determination

However, as seen earlier, the Defendants unilaterally notified the Plaintiff of the marriage. However, considering the above basic facts and the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 11, the Defendants did not properly know the Plaintiff’s occupation, income, etc. in promising marriage with the Plaintiff, but did not know the Plaintiff’s occupation, income, etc., and did not properly understand the Plaintiff’s occupation, income, etc., and did so at least one month from the time when they came to know about the Plaintiff’s occupation, income, etc., which should be premised upon the Plaintiff’s trust. The Defendants did not know that they were aware of the Plaintiff’s occupation, income, etc., and notified the Plaintiff of the marriage unilaterally without having attempted to talk with the Plaintiff (see, e.g., evidence No. 4-1 through 7, No. 11, No. 12, No. 5, No. 13-1, and No. 13-4, etc., the Defendants did not have any sufficient evidence to acknowledge that there was an occupational error as to the Plaintiff’s testimony, etc.

B. Regarding the claim for damages on property

1) The parties' assertion

A) The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff spent 12,830,700 won in total as stated in the attached expense expenditure statement on the premise of marriage or marriage, the Defendants are liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to the above expense amount.

B) The defendants' assertion

Since it is reasonable for the Defendants to notify the Plaintiff of the divorce, each of the expenses set forth in the separate expense expenditure Nos. 7, 11 is not obligated to pay to the Plaintiff. Moreover, each of the expenses set forth in the same Nos. 5, 6, and 13 was borne by the Defendants, and the expenses set forth in the same Nos. 8 was agreed not to be disbursed between the Plaintiff side and the Defendants, and the expenses set forth in the same Nos. 16 included KRW 790,000 for the purchase cost of the Plaintiff’s properties among the 2,270,000 won set forth in the same Nos. 16. In addition, the Defendants were unable to comply with the Plaintiff’s claim, as a result, to pay KRW 570,000 for the purchase cost of the new compound, 500,000 for the new compound travel, 570,000 for the purchase cost of the new compound, and KRW 150,000 for the Defendant ○.

2) Determination

A) As to each of the expenses indicated in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 6, 8, 12, and 17, the Plaintiff paid each of the above expenses. Even if the Plaintiff spent each of the expenses, the ownership of the goods purchased by the Plaintiff and the Defendant for the purpose of married life belongs to the person who paid the expenses. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for the return of each of the items listed in the separate sheet as the owner of each of the above items is separate from seeking the return thereof. Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

B) As to each of the expenses set forth in Nos. 7, 9, 10, and 11

The plaintiff's expenses set forth in the above 9 and 11 are either in dispute between the parties or in combination with the purport of the whole pleadings set forth in Gap evidence 4-4 and 6. As seen earlier, the degree of responsibility between the plaintiff and the defendants is equal to each other. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the ratio of the plaintiff's liability is 50% in total in determining the amount of damages of this case. Thus, the amount of property damages that the defendants are liable to compensate for to the plaintiff is 490,000 won (+ 530,000 won + 450,000 won) x 0.5. The plaintiff asserted that each expense set forth in the above 7 and 10 x 0 x 0.5 is liable to the defendants. However, although the plaintiff asserted that each expense set forth in the above 4-2, 5, and 12-2 of Gap evidence 4-2, 12 is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff has paid each of the above expenses, and there is no other evidence to support this part of the plaintiff

C. Ultimately, the Defendants are obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at each rate of KRW 490,00 and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from May 8, 2012 to the date following the date on which the Plaintiff’s claim was delivered to the Defendants, which is deemed reasonable to dispute over the existence and scope of the Defendants’ performance obligation from May 8, 2012, which is the date of the sentencing of the instant case, until January 7, 2013, and from the following day to the date of full payment.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified within the scope of the above recognition and the remaining claims are without merit.

Judges Donsung Exchange