The case which recognized the formation of a matrimonial engagement by implied agreement and recognized the liability for damages caused by the dissolution of matrimonial engagement to the person who reversed it.

The case holding that even if one of the parties directly and explicitly did not express his intention to enter into a matrimonial engagement to the other party, it is reasonable to view that a matrimonial engagement was established between the parties for the purpose of protecting such trust, and that if one of the parties has unlawfully destroyed such matrimonial engagement, it cannot be exempted from liability for damages caused thereby, if he had trusted the trust in the establishment of a matrimonial engagement to the other party through a continued academic negotiation over a period of two years.

Articles 804, 805, and 806 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff (Seoul General Law Firm, Attorneys Yang Young-sik et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 20 million won with 25 percent interest per annum from July 14, 1995 to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Two-minutes of litigation costs are assessed against the defendant, and the remainder is assessed against the plaintiff.

4. The above paragraph (1) can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 70,000,000 and the amount at the rate of twenty-five percent per annum from the date of the decision of this case to the date of full payment.

1. The plaintiff's 1, 2, 3's childbirth and 13's each of the above 19 days of marriage and 2's investigation report are as follows. The plaintiff was working for the defendant's 1, 2, and 3's 1,000 women's women's women's women's women's women's women's women's women's women's women's women's women's women's women's women's women's women's women's women's women's women's women's women's women's women's women's women's women's women's women's women's women's women's women's women's women's women's women's women's women's women's women's women's women's women's women's women's women's women's women's women's women's women's women's women's women's women's women's women's women's women' 2.

According to the above facts, the defendant expressed the plaintiff's intent to marry with the plaintiff indirectly, implicitly or implicitly through a series of behavior and continued sexual negotiations over about two years as above, and thus it is reasonable to view that a matrimonial engagement was established between the plaintiff and the defendant in order to protect the plaintiff's trust. The defendant unilaterally declared the plaintiff's family environment and academic background that had already been known at the time of the commencement of the alliance with the plaintiff, thereby unfairly destroying the above matrimonial engagement by unilaterally declaring it with the plaintiff's family environment and academic background at the time of the commencement of the alliance with the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay consolation money for mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff by unfairly destroying the above matrimonial engagement with the plaintiff.

Furthermore, with respect to the amount of consolation money that the Defendant is liable for compensation, the amount of consolation money to be paid by the Defendant shall be determined as KRW 20,000,000, in consideration of all the circumstances indicated in the pleadings of the instant case, including the following: (a) the health team, the age, academic background, family relations, occupation, property level, the circumstance and degree of responsibility where the matrimonial engagement was unfairly destroyed; and (b) the Plaintiff, in particular, did not engage in a normal matrimonial engagement; (c) the Plaintiff had sexual intercourse with the Defendant several times without any explicit undertaking on marriage; and (d) there was any error in the course of performing the surgery for pregnancy indiscreetly with the Defendant; and (e) the Plaintiff had been making it possible

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of 20,000,000 won and damages for delay at the rate of 25% per annum from July 14, 1995 to the date following the sentencing day.

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

Judges Lee Tae-chul (Presiding Judge)