손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On October 20, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the marriage report with D on October 20, 2014.
B. Around June 13, 2015, D notified the Plaintiff of the divorce, and on January 18, 2016, D filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff, such as divorce (Scheon District Court 2016ddan5041).
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 13
2. The assertion and judgment
A. 1) The parties’ assertion 1) The Defendant infringed upon the married life of the Plaintiff by committing an unlawful act with the Plaintiff’s husband, and the Plaintiff suffered mental suffering, and the Defendant is obligated to pay consolation money to the Plaintiff. 2) The Defendant’s marital life between the Plaintiff and D has already been broken down before the Defendant associates with D, and thus, the Defendant does not infringe the Plaintiff’s marital life.
In addition, on July 16, 2015, the Defendant did not know that D was the father before receiving text messages from the Plaintiff.
B. The act of a third party of the general legal doctrine, which infringes on or interferes with a couple’s communal life falling under the essence of marriage and infringes on the spouse’s rights, thereby causing mental pain to the spouse constitutes a tort.
However, in a case where a married couple’s communal life is substantially broken down due to a prolonged separation of marriage, etc., and the substance of a married couple’s communal life no longer exists, and where it reaches an objective degree of impossibility of recovery, it cannot be deemed that the marital communal life corresponding
Therefore, even though the husband and wife did not have yet been divorced, if the marital community was actually broken down and the marital community became irrecoverable, even if the third party commits sexual act with the husband and wife, it cannot be deemed as an act infringing on the marital community or interfering with the maintenance thereof, and thereby, the right of the spouse’s communal living is infringed.