손해배상(기)
1. Of the part concerning the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) who falls under the following amount ordering payment.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff and C are legally married couple who completed the marriage report on May 21, 2012.
B. From the end of March 2016 to the end of May 2016, the Defendant: (a) had been employed by the Plaintiff’s husband C from the Lestostons located in the leisure city operated by the Plaintiff’s husband C to the end of May 2016.
C. C returned to Malaysia from July 15, 2016 to August 20, 2016, and the Defendant went to Singapore along with Malaysia from August 5, 2016 to August 9, 2016. From August 5, 2016 to 2016, Defendant and C entered a hotel in Singapore as well as the hotel in Singapore on August 7, 2016.
[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence 1 to 5, Gap evidence 11, Eul evidence 3 and 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant committed an unlawful act with C, and the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money of KRW 30,000,000 and delay damages to the plaintiff.
B. Determination 1) The husband and wife liable for damages bears the duty of good faith to not engage in any unlawful act. In this case, the term “unlawful act” includes any and all unlawful acts that are not faithful to the husband and wife’s duty of good faith even if not yet reached the marital relationship. If one spouse commits an unlawful act, the husband and wife is liable to compensate for mental distress inflicted upon the spouse (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu5, 87Meu6, May 26, 1987). Meanwhile, a third party shall not interfere with the common life of the husband and wife falling under the essence of the marriage, such as intervention in the husband and wife’s common life. A third party’s unlawful act does not interfere with the husband and wife’s common life falling under the essence of marriage by infringing on the husband and wife’s common life or interfering with the maintenance thereof and infringing on the spouse’s right as the spouse, in principle, constitutes a tort (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Meu241, May 29, 2015>