손해배상(기)
1. The defendant's KRW 18,000,000 and about this, 5% per annum from May 7, 2020 to February 10, 2021 to the plaintiff.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The plaintiff and C are legally married couple who completed the marriage report on April 28, 2004, and have two minor children under the chain.
(b) C was employed in a strike in the same position as the Defendant around 2015.
From the end of 2017, the Defendant and C made up a letter containing the following contents: (a) from the end of 2017, the Defendant and C opened up only D and exchanged pictures and messages; and (b) the Defendant made up to C a letter stating “voluntary”, “I wish to report” and “I wish to report.”
Defendant and C continued to contact two persons with Defendant’s spouse E even after the end of June 2018, which led to the Defendant’s spouse E, and even around October 4, 2018, the Defendant and C continued to contact with each other, and even around October 4, 2018.
(c)
On June 26, 2019, the Defendant’s spouse filed a lawsuit against C for damages due to an unlawful act under the Youngcheon District Court’s Young-gu Branch 2018Ga group 12143, and on June 26, 2019, the above court rendered a judgment that “C shall pay to E the amount of KRW 15 million and the amount calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from November 17, 2018 to June 26, 2019, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment,” and the above judgment became final and conclusive.
[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 7 (including various numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. 1) A third party’s liability for damages does not interfere with a married couple’s communal life falling under the essence of marriage by intervening in a married couple’s communal life of another person. A third party’s act of infringing on, or interfering with, a married couple’s communal life falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with the married couple, thereby infringing on the spouse’s right as the spouse and causing emotional distress to the spouse (see Supreme Court Decision 201Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). In this case, in principle, the act constitutes tort (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 201).