beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.05.17 2016가단132534

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 17,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from November 12, 2016 to May 17, 2017.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff and C shall complete a marriage report on October 22, 2003 and have two children who are the second and fifth years of middle schools.

B. C around December 11, 2015, upon the introduction of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a

C. On December 28, 2015, C, upon the individual circumstances, retired from office on December 28, 2015, came to have the said companies, including the Defendant, and came to a separate meeting with the Defendant.

C The two-lanes of the Defendant and the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two.

C was the first sex relationship with the Defendant under the influence of alcohol on the day.

After December 29, 2015 to March 27, 2016, C had a multiple times of telephone conversations with the Defendant. On January 3, 2016, C had a more sexual relationship on January 3, 2016 and on February 1, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including additional documentary evidence), Eul's testimony, and all pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view that the defendant committed an unlawful act over C and several occasions with knowledge that C is a spouse.

As above, a third party’s act of infringing on or interfering with a couple’s communal life falling under the essence of marriage and infringing on the spouse’s rights as the spouse, thereby causing mental pain to the spouse constitutes a tort (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). It is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the Plaintiff suffered mental pain.

Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay monetary compensation for mental damage suffered by the plaintiff due to the above improper act.

B. As to the amount of solatium, the amount of solatium, the marriage period between the plaintiff and C, and the defendant and C