logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원군산지원 2016.12.13 2016가단56002
손해배상(이혼)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 20,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from June 22, 2016 to December 13, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

Basic Facts

On January 13, 2011, the Plaintiff and the Defendant were married, but divorced on January 22, 2015.

The defendant was pregnant before the marriage with the plaintiff.

After marriage with the plaintiff on April 23, 201, the defendant gave birth to her husband and wife C.

The plaintiff believed C as his natural father and reported C as his natural father.

After getting divorced with the Defendant, the Plaintiff requested a gene test on March 25, 2015 to confirm the natural relationship between the Plaintiff and C with respect to an entertainment failure corporation.

The entertainment failure Co., Ltd. came to know that C was not the Plaintiff’s natural father.

On March 22, 2015, before the Plaintiff becomes aware of the results of genetic testing as above, the Plaintiff: (a) signed an agreement to receive child support by not later than 2022 instead of giving the amount of KRW 40,00,000,000, including child support expenses; (b) instead of giving the amount of KRW 17,000,000,000, and issued to the Defendant a written statement stating that the remaining debt

[Based on the basis of recognition] The plaintiff did not dispute, as to the claim of Gap evidence 1-1-4, Gap evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 3-1, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-3, and the purport of the whole pleadings, although Eul is not one's own father, it was caused to marry by hiding the possibility of it, and by deceiving the plaintiff as if he was pregnant with the plaintiff, and accordingly, the plaintiff paid a considerable amount of money for fostering Eul and the defendant. The plaintiff sought payment of consolation money of KRW 30,00,000 on the ground that Eul was not one's father's mother.

The defendant had already been pregnant before being married with the plaintiff, and the defendant seems to have been fully aware of the possibility that C's father was able to be another male, not the plaintiff, and ② while being in school with social norms, women's pregnancy is very significant reason for male to decide the marriage with the woman.

arrow