beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On February 21, 2012, the Plaintiff married with C, but applied for the confirmation of intention of divorce with the Incheon Family Court on August 19, 2016.
B. On October 11, 2016, the Plaintiff married with C on October 27, 2016.
C. From August 2016, the Defendant committed an act, such as drinking alcohol together with drinking alcohol, and exchanging telephone conversations and text messages.
[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was made by the Defendant, from August 2016 to December 2016, 2016, committed unlawful acts, such as talking C with LBC at any time, exchanging LBC, and sending telephone conversations and text messages. As a result, the Plaintiff’s marital relationship between the Plaintiff and C went bankrupt. The Plaintiff was aware of the Defendant’s and C’s unlawful acts on October 11, 2016, and received severe mental impulses.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the consolation money of KRW 30,000,000 and damages for delay due to unlawful act.
B. The following circumstances revealed in the above basic facts and arguments, namely, ① the time when the Defendant met C was on August 2016, and the marriage between the Plaintiff and C at that time appears to have been in a state of failure to reach an application for confirmation of intention of divorce. ② Since the Plaintiff knew of the relationship with the Defendant around October 11, 2016, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff’s application for confirmation of intention of divorce was due to the relationship between the Defendant and C, ③ the Plaintiff filed a report of marriage again with the Defendant on October 27, 2016, and ④ the Defendant cannot be deemed to have maintained the relationship with C with the Plaintiff on October 27, 2016, considering the fact that it was difficult to deem that the relationship with the Plaintiff continued to exist after the Plaintiff’s adjudication on October 27, 2016, the evidence alone is insufficient to recognize that the relationship between the Defendant and C was submitted.