[Namyangju Law Firm Damages Defense Case] Successful Defense of the Damages Amount With the Help of a Namyangju Law Firm

The client who visited Namyangju law firm Daeryun was dating a woman other than his spouse while married.

He had told the woman that he was unmarried rather than married, and in fact he was at a point where, being on poor terms with his spouse, he was trying to end the relationship through divorce.

The other woman continued the relationship believing the client was unmarried, but later learned he was married, which led to a claim for damages for emotional distress.

Because she claimed an infringement of her right to sexual self-determination and sought damages based on consolation money for the emotional distress, the client requested help from a Namyangju law firm Daeryun civil law specialist.

The plaintiff argues that her right to sexual self-determination was infringed by the defendant's deception. In connection with this, one may recall the now-abolished crime of sexual intercourse under pretense of marriage.

The court held that "the fact that the crime of sexual intercourse under pretense of marriage has been abolished does not mean that civil liability for such conduct is also denied," thereby understanding sexual intercourse under pretense of marriage, after the abolition of that crime, in the form of civil liability.

The court held the following.

• "The right to sexual self-determination means the right of each person to independently establish his or her own sexual values on the basis of his or her chosen view of life and the like, and, on that basis, to choose a partner and have sexual relations of his or her own free will and under his or her own responsibility, free from unjust interference by others. From a woman's standpoint as well, even if the other man expresses active affection and requests sexual relations, as a rule the woman herself judges whether to have sexual relations and bears the responsibility that follows."
• "Infringing another person's right to sexual self-determination may constitute a civil tort, but in order to determine that the right to sexual self-determination was infringed beyond the degree legally tolerated, the matter must not be evaluated merely on the circumstance that there was an element such as deception in the process leading to the sexual relations. It must be judged by comprehensively considering the various circumstances, such as the words and conduct that influenced the exercise of the right to sexual self-determination up to the point of the sexual relations, in light of the sound common sense and sense of justice of our society."

The court so held.

The Namyangju law firm team argued that the plaintiff and the defendant engaged in high-level sexual conduct only a few days after first meeting alone, and went on a trip not long after they began dating.

Considering these matters comprehensively, the team argued that it was difficult to conclude that the defendant's marital status was an important consideration in the plaintiff's decision to choose the defendant as a partner for sexual relations,

and that it was entirely the plaintiff's own decision, not an infringement of the defendant's right to sexual self-determination.

Citing as examples the messages and expressions the plaintiff continually sent to the defendant, the Namyangju law firm team emphasized that the plaintiff met the defendant in a very free-spirited manner, treating the relationship merely as a casual one.

Although the plaintiff argued that she regarded the defendant as a marriage partner, she showed a casual attitude in how she treated the defendant,

and the team argued that this confirmed once again that the defendant's marital status was not an important factor for the plaintiff.

The Namyangju law firm team argued that, although the defendant was legally married, he had been separated from his spouse for a long time,

that he was in the process of arranging matters in order to divorce, that the marital relationship with his spouse had in substance broken down, and that he intended to settle the legal marriage and continue a serious relationship with the plaintiff.

The team emphasized that there was no deception aimed at sexual relations with the plaintiff.