손해배상(기)
The defendant's KRW 15,00,000 for the plaintiff and its 5% per annum from December 3, 2019 to September 9, 2020, and the following.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The plaintiff and C are the legal couple who reported their marriage on November 17, 1987.
B. The Defendant committed an unlawful act, such as committing a sexual intercourse with C from the beginning of 2019 to May 2019 with knowledge that C is a person who is married and is a spouse, and committing a sexual intercourse with C several times.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 12 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. In principle, a third party's act of infringing on or interfering with a couple's communal life falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with the spouse, and infringing on the spouse's right as the spouse, thereby causing mental pain to the spouse constitutes a tort.
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997). “Unlawful act committed by a spouse” under Article 840 Subparag. 1 of the Civil Act is a wider concept including a adultery, and does not reach the common sense, but includes any unlawful act not conforming to the husband’s duty of good faith (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Meu7, May 24, 198). Whether an act constitutes an unlawful act ought to be evaluated in consideration of the degree and circumstances of each specific
(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Meu4095 Decided November 28, 2013). B.
According to the above facts, the defendant, knowing that C is a spouse, maintained an inappropriate relationship with C from the beginning of 2019 to May 2019 (the argument of both the plaintiff and the defendant against the above recognized teaching period shall not be accepted). This act of the defendant is deemed to have infringed upon the plaintiff's community life or interfered with the maintenance thereof, and it is obvious in light of the rule of experience that the plaintiff suffered a considerable amount of mental suffering. Thus, the defendant's mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff.