2014dboard 18311 Compensation (as referred to in this paragraph)

(************************))

Busan

Attorney Lee Do-young

(************************))

Suwon-si

Law Firm Doz.

June 23, 2015

July 7, 2015

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 10 million won with 5% interest per annum from September 18, 2014 to July 7, 2015, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each party.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 30 million won with 20% interest per annum from the day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition

A. On November 17, 1992, the Plaintiff and JeongCC were legal couples who reported marriage.

B. Around July 2012, JeongCC stated to the KimD in Seoul * a private person who has a pet, and the pet is frequently getting out of Busan . The defendant as a ** as a head of the food company from around 2011 ***** as a representative of the office.

C. In February 2014, the Defendant and Jeong-CC had been sleeped in the Han-ju Village in the Jeonju, 199, and at that time the Defendant was sleeped the shoulder of Jeong-CC with a bad hand.

D. Around March 2014, Defendant and PCC made several calls from time to time on several occasions on a day, and the call time was late or a new wall.

E. Around March 2014, Defendant and PCC sent and received the following Kakao Stockholm messages.

1) However, it does not comply with the absolute love of two persons?

2) Neither Party nor Party 2) shall have love.

Above 3) Thresponding in response to CCC

4) Although it is not net with v. S., it can be done together with L. Blue in the future under the blue blue?

5) The number of hours between men and women to meet is more problematic than the number of questions.

6) At the time after one hour, even after the arrival of the station from one to anywhere?

7) Sheet a taxi in the direction from the Tweon to the Sungnam-west direction * Water delivery * in the water delivery b.

Central Central Central Republic Central Republic Republic from one to two

19 ) 이제 퇴근해ㅠㅠ 그래도 서방님 뽀 ~ 오 받아 가벼운 발걸음으로 가 ~

F. On May 1, 2014, JungCC filed a divorce lawsuit against the Plaintiff on the ground that the marriage relationship was broken down due to the Plaintiff’s assault, etc. by the Busan Family Court Decision 2014Ddan9454, etc. Around May 1, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a divorce lawsuit against the Plaintiff. The written diagnosis, written confirmation of medical treatment, the first diagnosis records of the emergency medical center, and the confirmation sources of the instant accident were added as evidence in the written complaint.

G. On July 30, 2014, the instant divorce conciliation was established between the Plaintiff and JeongCC (hereinafter referred to as “instant divorce conciliation”).

1) The Plaintiff and JeongCC are divorced.

2) The Plaintiff shall be designated as a person with parental authority and custodian of the EE.

3) The Plaintiff shall bear the child support of E.

4) A regularCC may hold visitation negotiations in consultation with EE.

5) The PCC shall make the Plaintiff by August 14, 2014 * Busan** the Gu***** * * the New East Manion.

*** ownership transfer registration procedures based on one's own property division on July 30, 2014

6) The Plaintiff and JungCC do not claim against the other party all property claims, such as consolation money and division of property, in addition to those stipulated above in relation to the above divorce.

[Grounds for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, video products, and witnessCC

Part of the testimony, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination

"Unlawful conduct of a spouse" under Article 840 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Act is a more broad concept, including the adultery, and includes a single illegal conduct that does not reach the adultery but does not conform to the husband's duty of mutual assistance. Whether a spouse is an unlawful conduct or not should be assessed in consideration of the degree and situation of each specific case (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Meu4095, Nov. 28, 2013).

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to see that JungCC committed an unlawful act in violation of the husband’s duty of good faith by using a long-term communication with the Defendant or direct communication with the Defendant, and the Defendant actively participated in such unlawful act even with the knowledge that the Defendant was an associater, and that the Plaintiff and JungCC caused such unlawful act by the Defendant and JungCC, which led to divorce. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to compensate for mental suffering suffered by the Plaintiff in conjunction with JungCC, a joint tortfeasor, in cash.

In regard to this, if the defendant knew that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case, he would not respond to the divorce mediation of this case, and if the defendant would pay consolation money to the plaintiff as the case, he would obtain the legal status that the defendant would claim reimbursement against the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff's filing of the lawsuit of this case against the defendant is substantially contrary to the contents of the divorce mediation and is contrary to the good faith principle. However, it cannot be said that the plaintiff's claim of this case is contrary to the good faith principle merely because of the above circumstances asserted by the defendant.

Furthermore, considering the following circumstances: (a) the amount of consolation money that the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff; (b) the process and degree of the act committed by the Defendant and JeongCC; (c) the Plaintiff and JungCC’s actual marital relationship duration; (d) the Plaintiff and JungCC renounced the claim for consolation money to the other party; and (e) the details of the instant divorce conciliation in which the Plaintiff and JungCC made a division of property in favor of the Plaintiff, and the circumstances leading to divorce, etc., it is reasonable to determine the amount of consolation money to be paid to the Plaintiff as KRW 10 million.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages with 5% per annum under the Civil Act from September 18, 2014 to July 7, 2015, which is the day following the day on which the Plaintiff served the Defendant with a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff, to the extent that the Defendant is obligated to claim against the Defendant regarding the scope of its performance obligations, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the day of the full payment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-ok