beta
(영문) 광주지방법원 2014.11.26 2014가단517923

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 25,00,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from July 17, 2014 to November 26, 2014; and (b) the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 22, 1979, the Plaintiff and C are legally married couple who reported their marriage, and they have the children of 2 South and North (197, 1980, and 1983).

B. From around February 2004, the Defendant: (a) around 2004, sent female clothes to B; (b) C served as the charge of charge of LPG charging station adjacent to the Defendant’s clothes; (c) the Defendant, even though being aware that C was a legal spouse, committed unlawful acts while maintaining an inappropriate relationship with C continuously from February 2009, while maintaining the legal and inappropriate relationship.

On June 21, 2013, the Defendant and C were aware of the Defendant’s husband, E, while committing an indecent act at the Defendant’s clothes shop. On the other hand, the Defendant made a false statement about the Defendant’s rape and indecent act by compulsion from C, and E had the Defendant file a complaint against the Defendant for rape and indecent act on June 24, 2013.

E. On March 14, 2014, the Gwangju District Prosecutor’s Office decided not to institute a prosecution against C on the grounds that he/she has no right to institute a prosecution and that he/she failed to institute a prosecution. However, in the course of investigation, the fact that the Defendant and C had committed multiple interviews and misconduct since February 2009 to June 21, 2013 was recognized.

F. The Plaintiff did not file a divorce lawsuit against C or divorce by agreement by taking into account the instant case as a matter.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant maintained an inappropriate relationship with C for a period exceeding four years even when he knew that the plaintiff, who is a spouse under law, was a legal spouse, and this constitutes a tort against the plaintiff, and since it is obvious in light of the rule of experience that the plaintiff suffered mental suffering, the defendant is obligated to do so in money.

B. Furthermore, as to the amount of consolation money, the health group, the period of marital life and family relationship of the Plaintiff and C, the period and degree of fraudulent act committed by the Defendant and C, and the Defendant’s act and C.