A man surnamed Lin spent 50,000 yuan to keep his younger sister for only one-time sex. He angrily accused Zhengmei of paying back the money and lost the lawsuit.
Schematic diagram (data photo)
[Reporter Huang Jialin/Kaohsiung Report] A man surnamed Lin met Huang through a nurturing website. The two agreed to take care of Huang at 50,000 yuan per month, but they did not agree on the number of sexual activities. In vain, Lin Nan angrily sued for breach of contract and asked Huang Nv to pay back 45,000 yuan, but the judge believed that the nurturing contract violated public order and good customs and sentenced Lin Nan to lose the lawsuit.
The judgment pointed out that on September 3, 2021, a man surnamed Lin met Huang through a nurturing website. The two parties agreed to become a regular partner with 50,000 yuan. until terminated by mutual agreement.
Please read on...
On September 16 of the same year, Lin and Huang made an appointment to meet. After Lin Nan gave 50,000 yuan on the spot, the two went directly to the motel to "fight". , Thinking that Huang Nv cheated money, he calculated it as a one-time transaction of 5,000 yuan, and sued Huang Nv to return him 45,000 yuan.
During the trial in the Fengshan Summary Court, Huang Nv did not appear in court to defend herself; the judge checked the conversation records of the two and found that Huang Nv had promised to go to Lin Nan’s house for a “date” but Lin Nan replied that the epidemic was serious and his mother did not agree to receive outsiders at home Lin Nan also asked Huang Nv to go out on holiday, Huang Nv replied "yes", but afterward, Lin Nan himself said: "Meeting is boring, you have no sincerity in dating, ask questions and don't answer, don't see each other."
The judge believes that Lin Nv did not refuse Huang Nan's request for a date, but Lin Nan refused for some reason, and the two later disagreed or even quarreled due to various reasons. Not getting along well and reducing going out to see each other, Huang Nv did not infringe Lin Nan's rights and interests, and the nurturing contract violated public order and good customs, and was an invalid contract. Therefore, Lin Nan lost the lawsuit and could appeal.