beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 8,00,000 and the following day shall be 5% per annum from April 19, 2017 to September 19, 2017 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On October 31, 2007, the Plaintiff was a legally married couple who filed a marriage report with C and the Plaintiff had one child.
B. The Plaintiff and C resided in the United States from around 2008 for the Plaintiff’s study, etc., and C returned to Korea on August 2009, together with children born in the United States of America.
C. On February 2017, C demanded a divorce to the Plaintiff.
Since then, the plaintiff, who was suspected of C's attitude, recognized C's behavior and confirmed C's behavior. Since then, C made several meals at low time, made food such as supporting the defendant, or stayed at night in an officetel in which the defendant resides and stayed until new walling time.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, video, purport of whole pleading
2. The gist of the parties’ assertion argues that the Plaintiff committed an unlawful act in the course of the Plaintiff’s interview between the Defendant and C, and that the marriage between the Plaintiff and C was broken down.
The defendant asserts that there was no unlawful act in the process of contact with C and C, and that, before the arrival of the defendant and C, a certain degree of failure has already occurred between the plaintiff and the defendant, so the marriage between the plaintiff and C cannot be deemed to have reached the failure of the marriage between the defendant.
3. Determination
A. The plaintiff's claim of this case is based on the premise that the defendant committed a fraudulent act with C, and thus, it is judged as to whether there was a fraudulent act between the defendant and C.
Illegal act includes any act that is not faithful to the duty of good faith as a spouse, and whether it is an illegal act as a broad concept rather than a so-called cross-section shall be evaluated in consideration of the degree and situation according to each specific case.
(See Supreme Court Decision 92Meu68 delivered on November 10, 1992). The above-mentioned facts and the evidence cited earlier and the purport of the whole pleadings are recognized.