beta
(영문) 대전지방법원천안지원 2016.10.19 2016가단107697

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from July 16, 2016 to October 19, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and C are legally married couple who completed the report of marriage on June 18, 2012, and have married under the slurries.

B. Around June 2015, the Defendant became aware of C who entered the same workplace and went to the same workplace, and around March 2016, C was compared to C.

Around that time, the Defendant had frequently contacted with C, from May 31, 2016 to June 1, 2016, and from June 1, 2016 to June 1, 2016, to June 13, 2016 to June 14, 2016, as well as with C, in a tent.

C. The plaintiff maintains a matrimonial relationship with C until now.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 12 (including each number in the case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The act that a third party who is liable for damages causes mental pain to the spouse by committing an unlawful act with the spouse of the married couple, thereby infringing on the common life of the married couple falling under the essence of the marriage or interfering with the maintenance thereof and infringing on the spouse's right as the spouse, constitutes tort in principle.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2013Meu2441, May 29, 2015; 2004Da1899, May 13, 2005). “Cheating” in this context refers to a wider concept, including the adultery, that does not reach the common sense, but does not reach the common sense, and includes any unlawful act that is not faithful to the husband’s duty of mutual assistance. Whether it is an unlawful act ought to be evaluated in consideration of the degree and situation of the specific case.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Meu68, Nov. 10, 1992). According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant continued to meet or contact with each other with knowledge that C is a spouse.

This constitutes an unlawful act that infringes on the right of the plaintiff as the spouse and interferes with the maintenance of marital life which is the essence of marriage.

Therefore, the defendant shall thereby inflict mental damage on the plaintiff.