손해배상(기)
1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from June 27, 2017 to November 2, 2017.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The plaintiff and C are legally married couple who reported their marriage on January 7, 1994, and have one child (high school student) between C and C.
B. The Defendant, despite being aware of the fact that C is a person who is married and is a spouse, committed an unlawful act, such as having to teach C with C from August 2016 to March 2017, such as having to meet with C and her mother, several times from September 2016 to March 2017.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 4, and 5, the purport of the whole pleading
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
(Supreme Court Decision 2010Meu4095 Decided November 28, 2013). B.
According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant committed an unlawful act, such as having a son and her mother, even though he/she is a spouse, and the defendant's act is deemed to have infringed upon the plaintiff's common life of the couple or interfered with the maintenance thereof. Thus, it is obvious in light of the rule of experience that the plaintiff suffered a considerable amount of mental suffering. Thus, the defendant is obliged to pay money for mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff.
C. We examine the amount of consolation money to be paid by the defendant.