1. The Client's Crisis

The client and the spouse were a legally married couple who had been married for more than 10 years and had three minor children. The spouse, who worked in the broadcasting industry, began an improper relationship with the other man, a PD at the production company whom she met during the drama production process. Later, when the spouse suddenly demanded a divorce, the family began to fall apart. While tracking the spouse's suspicious movements, the client confirmed that the spouse had lied about attending a special lecture and had stayed at the other man's officetel. The client had to undergo counseling due to severe emotional distress, but there was not enough direct evidence to prove the affair.

2. Key Issues

The difficult issues to resolve in this case were largely threefold. First, the key question was how to prove the improper conduct when direct evidence of the affair was lacking. The other man denied any wrongdoing altogether, claiming it was "merely an employment-related relationship," and also argued that he did not know the spouse was married. Second, because the other side attacked the credibility of the recorded transcript, the key piece of evidence secured by the client, by calling it a "coerced false confession," we had to objectively prove that the recording was a voluntary conversation. Third, because the other man, after losing at first instance, continued to challenge the ruling and took the case to the appellate court, arguing that it was a "misapprehension of facts that accepted one-sided allegations of infidelity as fact without specific evidence," we had to maintain the first-instance decision even on appeal.

3. Existence's Strategy

Attorney Yong Ji-sang, the firm's managing partner, and Attorney Shin Mi-jin devised a strategy to dismantle the other man's lies and excuses one by one in a situation unfavorable due to the lack of evidence of the affair.

First, they scientifically established the reliability of the recording transcript. The other man claimed that the client had locked the spouse inside a closed vehicle for two hours and interrogated her coercively, but by directly analyzing the original audio file, they found that the actual conversation lasted 1 hour and 18 minutes. They also proved through the cicada sounds heard beyond the car window in the recording that the conversation took place not in an enclosed space but in an open outdoor parking lot, and through a professional counselor's analysis, objectively demonstrated that the client led the conversation calmly and reasonably.

Second, they neutralized the other man's excuse that the gift was an "appreciation present for work-related help." The other man claimed that giving the spouse golf equipment worth 330,000 won was an expression of gratitude for budget savings, but through KakaoTalk messages and other evidence, they uncovered that in reality the spouse was in a position to be investigated by the audit team for exceeding the budget by more than 370 million won, thereby proving the excuse was clearly false.

Third, in response to the claim that he did not know the spouse was married, they strongly argued that it is contrary to common experience for all three people, who all worked in the same broadcasting industry, to have closely collaborated for nearly a year and yet not know whether the other person was married.

4. Results and Recovery

The court of first instance accepted all of Law Firm Exist's arguments, recognized the improper relationship between the other man and the spouse, and ordered payment of 25 million won in damages and statutory interest for late payment. Litigation costs were also ordered to be borne entirely by the defendant. The other man appealed, but the appellate panel found that the first-instance court's finding of improper conduct was proper, dismissed all of the other man's arguments, and affirmed the first-instance judgment as is. The client won in both the first instance and on appeal, and was able to clearly hold the spouse legally accountable for the daily life that had been shattered by the spouse's affair.

Attorneys in charge: Attorney Yong Ji-sang · Attorney Shin Mi-jin

This case has been partially de-identified to protect confidentiality, within the scope that does not harm the essence of the case.