[위자료청구사건][고집1966민,404]
1. Liability for damages to the wife of a person who has known that he/she has a wife, and has entered into an overlapping relationship;
2. Claims for damages caused by unlawful acts of permanent or continuous nature and extinctive prescription;
1. If, even though being aware that there is a wife, the wife had a overlapping relationship with the husband, and the wife prevents the husband from living a normal marital life with the husband, then the wife is liable for compensation for damages due to infringement of the husband's right.
2. The three-year extinctive prescription has already been completed at the time of submission of the plaintiff's response to the claim for damages due to permanent or continuous illegal acts, but the subsequent part is not yet complete.
Articles 826, 750, and 766 of the Civil Act
Supreme Court Decision 67Da99 delivered on April 25, 1967 (Supreme Court Decision 1147Da1147 delivered on April 25, 196, Supreme Court Decision 766Da593 delivered on April 25, 196)
Plaintiff
Defendant
Seoul District Court of First Instance (65No7719)
Of the original judgment, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount equivalent to five percent per annum from August 14, 1965 to the date of full payment shall be revoked.
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
The plaintiff's incidental appeal is dismissed.
All the costs of the first and second trials shall be borne equally by the plaintiff and the defendant.
The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 3,00,000 and the amount at the rate of 5% per annum from the following day of the service of the instant gushes to the full payment day.
The court costs are assessed against the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.
The defendant (Appellant) attorney shall revoke the part against the defendant in the original judgment.
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances, and the plaintiff (Incidental appellant)'s attorney shall file an incidental appeal and revoke the part against the plaintiff in the original judgment.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 50 million won with an annual interest rate of 5% from August 14, 1965 to the date of full payment.
All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant in the first and second trials and a declaration of provisional execution.
On May 20, 1935, Nonparty 1 is the husband of the plaintiff who was married to the plaintiff on May 20, 1935, and the defendant delivered 1 South and North 4 women between the plaintiff and the non-party 1, and the defendant had given birth to 3 South and North 2 women from April 1942, who was the plaintiff's husband, and had given birth to 3 South her husband from around April 1942, and there was no dispute between the parties, and the defendant had already been aware of the fact that the non-party 1 is a male who was married to the plaintiff at the end of 1942. In full view of the testimony of the non-party 10-1 and 2 as well as the witness of the court below of the second instance trial, the defendant cannot be found to have established a relationship with the plaintiff's husband on February 1964, and the testimony of the non-party 4 was not recognized after the above recognition, and thus, the defendant did not establish a family relationship with the plaintiff's husband's rights.
The defendant's defense that the defendant is not liable for tort since the plaintiff voluntarily consenteds to the defendant and the non-party 1, or he was aware of the overlapping relationship between the defendant and the non-party 1 in accordance with the purport of the plaintiff's argument. But it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff allowed the plaintiff's act of non-conformity for a long time since the plaintiff knew that the overlapping relationship between the defendant and the non-party 1 was obtained by her husband, and it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff allowed the plaintiff's act of non-conformity for a long time. On the other hand, there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff consented to or accepted the overlapping relationship with the non-party 1 in advance and that the plaintiff consented to or accepted the overlapping relationship with the non-party 1.
In other words, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim for damages against the plaintiff's tort has been completed three years as stipulated in Article 776 of the Civil Code, and the defendant's claim for damages against the defendant's non-party 1 was about December 194. The plaintiff's claim for damages against the non-party 1 was not clearly disputed (refer to the same person stated on December 9, 1966). Thus, the plaintiff's claim for damages against the defendant's tort from August 2, 1965, which had been submitted to the court for 1962.3 years since the plaintiff's claim for damages against the non-party 1 was dismissed by 50 percent of the total amount of damages from August 2, 1962 to February 3, 1962. The plaintiff's claim for damages against the non-party 1 for damages against the non-party 2's claim for damages against the defendant's non-party 1 for damages against the non-party 1's non-party 1's claim for damages against the above defendant's claim for damages.
Judges Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Judge)