beta
(영문) 전주지방법원 2018.04.11 2018가단6374

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 30,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from October 20, 2017 to April 11, 2018.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 17, 1994, the Plaintiff has two children as the legal couple who completed the marriage report with C on November 17, 1994.

B. Around 2006, the Defendant completed childcare leave, and returned to an inappropriate relationship with C, with the same school fee C, which was reinstated, and led to an inappropriate relationship. Such fact was discovered to D, the Defendant’s spouse, and continued contact with C around 2009.

In addition, the Defendant sent the Messenger containing the contents of “voluntary”, “inve”, “inve”, and “self-urging” to C from the beginning of 2012 to the point of issue to D around 2017, and entered into an improper relationship with C with C, including the Messenger.

C. On May 13, 2017, the Plaintiff discovered the Plaintiff’s workplace and notified the Defendant and C’s non-wheeled fact to the effect that D had become aware of the Defendant and C’s unlawful act, and due to its shock, experienced the scarcity, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1-4 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. 1) In principle, a third party’s act of infringing on or impeding the maintenance of a married couple’s community 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 emotional distress to the spouse constitutes a tort (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant, even though he/she is aware of the fact that he/she is a spouse of C, committed a tort infringing the Plaintiff’s rights as a couple’s community life and spouse, thereby committing a tort. It is clear in light of the empirical rule that the Plaintiff suffered considerable mental distress. Accordingly, it is liable for the Defendant to pay consolation money for emotional distress suffered by the Plaintiff due to the above illegal act to C, and at the time when the Defendant associates with C.