μŠΉμ†Œμ‚¬λ‘€

Woman Denying Sexual Relations with Married Man Ordered to Pay β‚©20 Million in Alimony βš–οΈπŸ’–

General Civil Matters Related to Damages, Divorce, and Family Law | Plaintiff Victory

Woman Denying Sexual Relations with Married Man Ordered to Pay β‚©20 Million in Alimony βš–οΈπŸ’–
Table of Contents

1. Case Overview πŸ”

The client (plaintiff) had maintained a peaceful family with her husband, who had worked diligently for 28 years. However, she discovered that her husband was having an inappropriate relationship with the defendant, a colleague. πŸ’” As a result, her husband quit his job and cut off contact with his family, shattering the family. However, the defendant was evading responsibility by claiming "it was a coercive advance" and "there was no sexual intercourse."

2. Defendant's Arguments and Strategy πŸ›‘οΈ

The defendant denied responsibility during the lawsuit, arguing as follows:

  • "My husband, who was the department head, coercively expressed his feelings, making it difficult to refuse." πŸ™…β€β™€οΈ

  • "There was only light skinship in the car, and there was absolutely no going to lodging facilities or having sexual intercourse." 🚫

  • "The recordings submitted as evidence are only my husband's one-sided statements." πŸ—£οΈ

3. Attorney Seo Yuri's Assistance and Rebuttal (Judgment on Denial of Sexual Intercourse) πŸ”₯

I strongly argued that the defendant's claim of 'denial of sexual intercourse' was legally meaningless.

  • Expansion of the Scope of Infidelity: I actively cited the Supreme Court precedent that 'infidelity' under the Civil Act is not limited to sexual intercourse but includes all acts that are not faithful to the marital fidelity obligation. πŸ“š

  • Presentation of Specific Evidence: Even if the defendant denied sexual intercourse, I proved that 'infidelity that infringes on the marital cohabitation' was evident based on the content of the conversations between the two and objective circumstances such as late-night meetings. πŸ“±

  • Pointing out the Lack of Remorse: I emphasized that the defendant's attitude of shifting responsibility to her husband rather than repenting for her wrongdoing was causing greater mental distress to the client. 😀

4. Court's Judgment and Outcome βš–οΈβœ¨

The court accepted my arguments and rendered the following judgment:

"Infidelity is not limited to sexual intercourse but includes all acts that are not faithful to the marital fidelity obligation."

  • Result: Infidelity acknowledged regardless of the defendant's claim of no sexual intercourse! β­•

  • Alimony: Judgment to pay 20,000,000 KRW πŸ’°

  • Litigation Costs: The defendant bears most of the costs πŸ“‰

5. Closing Remarks πŸ’¬

Is the other party claiming, "We didn't have sex, so it's not infidelity"? The court is not that lax! πŸ™…β€β™‚οΈ If the act damages the essence of marriage, responsibility can be sufficiently imposed. Heal your wounded heart and resolutely respond with a legal expert to regain your rights. 🀝🌈