A Gimhae Lawsuit Against the Adulterous Partner (Female) Attorney | Proving That the Client Did Not Know the Other Party Was Married, Resulting in Dismissal of the Plaintiff's Claim

The client of the Gimhae attorney for a lawsuit against the adulterous partner (female) did meet with the plaintiff's husband on several occasions.

However, when the client first met the plaintiff's husband, she had been told that he was divorced, and she met with him only on the understanding that he was already a divorced person.

Subsequently, the plaintiff called her, and she learned that the plaintiff's husband was a married man, and after learning the truth she did not meet the plaintiff's husband even once.

Moreover, even when the client met with the plaintiff's husband on several occasions, she never actively sought the meetings; she merely responded when the other party actively requested them.

The reason the marriage between the plaintiff and her husband broke down lies solely in the conduct of the plaintiff's husband, and the client too may be regarded as a victim who was named in this lawsuit because of the plaintiff's husband's lies.

The plaintiff in the case of the client of the Gimhae attorney for a lawsuit against the adulterous partner (female) argues that, because the client stayed at a motel with the plaintiff's husband, sexual relations took place.

However, the client and the plaintiff's husband stayed at the motel for only 40 minutes, and only had a conversation.

By generally accepted social standards, 40 minutes is far too short a time to conclude that sexual relations took place, and the plaintiff's husband likewise acknowledges that they only had a conversation.

The plaintiff in the case of the Gimhae attorney for a lawsuit against the adulterous partner (female) argues that sexual relations took place merely because the client was at a motel with the plaintiff's husband.

Under the argument of the plaintiff of the Gimhae attorney for a lawsuit against the adulterous partner (female), the client would have to compensate for the breakdown of the marriage caused by intent or negligence; however, because the client believed that the plaintiff's husband was divorced, no intent or negligence can be acknowledged.

While it is well understood that the plaintiff suffered mental shock, the client met with the other party on only a few occasions, wholly unaware that he was a married man.

Accordingly, it can be seen that the plaintiff's claim for damages for emotional distress against the client is without merit.