beta
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2018.12.19 2018가단100069

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 10,00,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from January 5, 2017 to December 19, 2018; and (b).

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 17, 2003, the Plaintiff completed the report of marriage with C on October 17, 2003, and among them, has two married children.

B. Around January 2010, the Defendant became aware of C through the Plaintiff, and thereafter, at least from January 2015, the Defendant maintained a resistant relationship with C.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's entries and videos, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. A. A third party of the relevant legal doctrine shall not interfere with a married couple’s communal living falling under the nature of the marriage by intervening in a couple’s communal living of another person and causing the failure of the couple’s communal living.

In principle, a third party's act of infringing on a couple's communal life falling under the essence of marriage or interfering with the maintenance thereof and infringing on the right as the spouse's right to it and causing mental pain to the spouse shall constitute a tort.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Meu2441, May 29, 2015). (B)

Judgment

1) According to the aforementioned facts and evidence, it is recognized that the defendant committed unlawful acts, such as having a sexual intercourse, even though he/she was aware of the fact that he/she had a spouse, and thereby infringed on and interfered with the maintenance of the common life of the plaintiff and C, and that the plaintiff suffered a considerable mental suffering, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money for mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff. 2) As to this, the defendant agreed to divorce and started a separate marriage around July 2014 by the plaintiff's exercise of occasional violence against C, which led to the failure of a marital relationship between the plaintiff and C and the actual divorce status. Accordingly, even if the defendant maintained a marital relationship with C, it is difficult to view that a tort infringing on the marital life or interfering with the maintenance thereof is established

From July 2014, the plaintiff agreed to divorce with C around July 2014.