beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.11.11 2016가단203282

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from February 24, 2016 to November 11, 2016, and the following.

Reasons

1. The facts in fact below may be acknowledged either in dispute between the parties or in the entries or images of Gap evidence 1 to 10 together with the whole purport of the pleadings.

The plaintiff and C are legally married couple who completed the marriage report on December 19, 2008, and the plaintiff and C have both 6 years of age and 3 years of age respectively.

B. Around June 2015, the Defendant became aware of C who operated a dental laboratory in relation to the duties while working as an assistant nurse from the “E Department” located in Sejong-si as an assistant nurse.

C. Since then, the Defendant and C sent a letter to each other with text messages expressing the following circumstances, such as “I am 100”, “I am 100 among these people,” “I am 100,” and “I am 100, so I am 3 to 4 times.”

On September 2015, the above improper act by the defendant and C continued to be up to the time when two persons are discovered to F, the defendant's spouse.

E. The plaintiff maintains a legal marital relationship with C until now.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

(a) A third party shall not interfere with a married couple's community life falling under the essence of marriage, such as interfering with a couple's community life by causing a failure of a married couple's community;

In principle, a third party's act of infringing on or interfering with a marital life falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with either side of the married couple and causing mental pain to the spouse by infringing on the rights of the spouse as the spouse.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Meu2441 Decided May 29, 2015). B.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant continued fraudulent acts, such as sexual intercourse with C, even though he is aware that he is a spouse of C, and the defendant's act was in violation of the plaintiff's marital relationship or interfered with the maintenance thereof. Thus, the defendant suffered by the plaintiff.