In a case where: (a) a minor was pregnant by having a sexual intercourse with B; (b) A’s mother was given an agreement to the effect that “A and B agreed to file a marriage report; and (c) her mother would pay KRW 200 million if the minor failed to comply with the agreement; and (b) A received an surgery for abortion, the case holding that it cannot be deemed that there was a true agreement between A and B to marry.

In a case where: (a) a minor was pregnant by having a sexual intercourse with B; (b) A’s mother received an agreement from B that “A and B agreed to file a marriage report; (c) payment of KRW 200 million shall be made; and (d) A, in order to establish a matrimonial engagement, there must be a true agreement between the parties to enter into the matrimonial relationship; (b) A merely entered into a sexual intercourse with B in a status of high school students; and (c) A and B did not have any marriage talk with B; and (d) B did not have any intention to enter into a marriage, even though A and B did not need to undergo a abortion surgery, it cannot be deemed that there was a true agreement between A and B, in light of the following: (a) A and his mother received a written agreement from B, and (b) A had to undergo a abortion surgery after having to undergo a pregnancy.

Article 806 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff (Attorney Choi Woo-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Song Young-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

October 23, 2014

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 10,000,000 won with 5% interest per annum from October 23, 2013 to December 4, 2014, 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 person;

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 10 million won with 5% interest per annum from June 1, 2011 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 2010, the Plaintiff, while attending the second year of high school, went to the document along with the Maman-gu in the middle of May 2010, and became the Defendant’s first class and the drinking together on the road.

B. The Plaintiff had sexual intercourses between the Defendant and the her mother, and thereafter, had sexual intercourses between the Defendant and the Defendant over three to four occasions while leaving the Republic of Korea.

C. The Plaintiff came to know that it was pregnant after several months, and confirmed that it was 20 weeks of pregnancy between her mother and her mother and her mother on October 4, 2010. The Plaintiff was aware that her mother and her mother were about 20 weeks of pregnancy. While her mother and her mother were to find ways to raise her child with the help of her mother and her mother facilities, the Defendant became aware that her child was born to her mother by pursuing the Plaintiff.

D. On October 13, 2010, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s mother notified the Defendant of pregnancy or the Plaintiff’s pregnancy, and the Plaintiff’s mother demanded that the Defendant be responsible for the Defendant. As such, the Defendant asserted that no longer delay should undergo abortion surgery, and that the Defendant should undergo abortion surgery.

E. On October 13, 2010, the Plaintiff’s mother agreed to deliver a letter to the Defendant, and on October 13, 2010, the Defendant drafted and implemented an agreement stating that “The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff were bound to enter into a foreign marriage system at least three times on the face of the agreement to enter into a meeting in the course of the conversation, with the intention to enter into a foreign marriage system. As a result, due to the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Defendant agreed to confirm a mutual marriage agreement under the mutual trust agreement and to report the marriage by no later than May 201 as a document under the mutual trust agreement in the responsibility of the Defendant, and legally to confirm the marriage agreement and report the marriage by no later than 200 million won.” (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

F. On October 14, 2010, the day after receiving the above written agreement, the Plaintiff was hospitalized in a hospital on October 14, 2010 and was subject to a necessary inspection for alcohol on the following day, and received a surgery for abortion on October 16, 2010.

G. The Defendant prepared an agreement as above and avoided contact with the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1-3, Evidence Nos. 4-1-4, 5-7, Evidence Nos. 1, 2-1, 2-3-1, 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In the first place, the defendant should pay the plaintiff the amount of damages for the reason that the defendant unilaterally reversed the matrimonial engagement with the plaintiff after the conclusion of matrimonial engagement with the plaintiff. In the second place, the defendant was pregnant with the plaintiff who is a minor sex relationship with the plaintiff without the plaintiff's consent. This constitutes a general illegal act and the amount of KRW 200 million as stipulated in the agreement of this case constitutes an agreement for the above illegal act. Thus, the defendant should pay

B. Judgment on the primary cause of the claim

As to whether a matrimonial engagement has been established between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, it shall be considered that there has been a true agreement between the parties to enter into a matrimonial engagement. The facts recognized earlier and the following circumstances recognized by the evidence No. 1, i.e., the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) have a sexual intercourse with the Defendant at a long distance; (b) the Plaintiff has a sexual intercourse several times with a high school student status; (c) there was no marriage talk between the Plaintiff and the Defendant; (d) the Plaintiff was known that the Plaintiff’s pregnancy was known and the Plaintiff’s mother was involved and the Plaintiff’s mother was born; and (e) if the Plaintiff and the Defendant were to have a wish to enter into a matrimonial engagement, there is no need to undergo a abortion surgery with the knowledge of pregnancy of the Plaintiff; (b) the Defendant argued that the Plaintiff’s mother should have to undergo a abortion surgery with the Plaintiff after receiving the instant agreement from the Defendant; and (b) the Defendant did not have any other evidence to conclude that the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not have any intention to enter it in the agreement with the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s family for the purpose of marriage.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion based on the premise that the conclusion of matrimonial engagement between the plaintiff and the defendant is constituted is without merit.

C. Determination on the conjunctive cause of claim

1) The following circumstances revealed based on the above facts, i.e., the defendant brought about a sex relationship with the plaintiff who is a minor and caused the plaintiff to be pregnant, and the defendant prepared the agreement of this case and made the plaintiff know about the plaintiff, and let the plaintiff conduct a pregnancy, but did not bear any responsibility after the pregnancy surgery, in light of the fact that the plaintiff did not have any responsibility after the pregnancy surgery, which is a minor, is in a state of mental and physical maturity compared to adults, and even if the defendant had a sex relationship with the plaintiff upon the plaintiff's consent, the defendant's series of acts by the above defendant constitute tort.

In addition, the content of the instant agreement is agreed to pay KRW 200 million if the defendant is not married with the plaintiff, and according to the language and conditions of the above agreement, it is reasonable to interpret that the defendant promises to avoid all the responsibilities arising in relation to the plaintiff by married the plaintiff or paying KRW 200 million.

Therefore, as long as there is no intention to marry with the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to pay the amount stipulated in the instant agreement to the Plaintiff as damages, barring special circumstances.

2) The defendant has a defense to the effect that the content of the agreement of this case is revoked on the ground of coercion. Thus, in order for the other party to be a declaration of harm by coercion to be an expression of harm by illegal means, the other party should feel and have expressed his intent. Here, for the purpose of making it illegal to notify a certain harm, it shall constitute a case where the profit pursued by the notice of harm in light of the transaction concept and overall circumstances at the time of the act of coercion is not justifiable, or where the content of harm notified to the other party by the means of coercion is in violation of the legal order, or where the notice of harm is inappropriate as a means to achieve the profit pursued by the notice of harm in light of the transaction concept (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da64049 delivered on March 23, 200). However, it cannot be deemed that the content of harm and injury was against the legal order, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the content of harm and injury was contrary to the above evidence No. 1, No. 2-1, 2-2, 31, and 2.

3) However, since a violation of the principle of trust and good faith or an abuse of rights violates a mandatory provision, the court may determine ex officio, even if there is no party’s assertion (see Supreme Court Decision 88Meu17181, Sept. 29, 1989). Considering the following circumstances that are recognized by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of pleadings, even if the defendant’s mistake is considered, the damages stipulated in the agreement of this case constitute an excessive heavy amount of damages, and thus, are contrary to the public order and good morals. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the damages exceeding KRW 10 million out of the damages under the agreement of this case

A) The Defendant’s act of having sexual intercourses with the minor under six years of age with the minor, thereby causing pregnancy. The Defendant’s act of gathering the result is subject to criticism. However, the Plaintiff was also a rush behavior for having sexual intercourses with the male and female who had sexual intercourses on the road as a minor’s status.

B) At the time, the Defendant did not have a large number of assets because he was residing together with his parents as a seafarer of 22 years of age at the time. The KRW 200 million was much more than the Defendant’s payment range.

C) Property damage suffered by the Plaintiff, who is a minor, due to the surgery during pregnancy does not extend to KRW 10 million.

D) At the time of the preparation of the instant agreement, the Defendant appears to have been unable to make reasonable decisions due to the Plaintiff’s belief that it should have the Plaintiff undergo a prompt surgery of pregnancy.

4) Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated by the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment, which is the date of service of a copy of the complaint of this case, to the day following October 23, 2013, which is deemed reasonable for the Defendant to dispute on the existence and scope of the obligation.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim 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 Kim Jong-hee (Presiding Judge)