손해배상(기)
1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from April 29, 2016 to October 12, 2016.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The plaintiff is a legal couple who completed the marriage report on November 1, 2003.
B. From around 2008, the Defendant sent and received contact C with each other at workplace education places, and went to travel with C around June 201 and October 2010.
Error also made a clerical error.
When the plaintiff came to know of such fact, on December 22, 2010, the defendant sentenced the plaintiff to the death by mail.
C. However, even after that, the Defendant sent C with C’s workplace gifts, and continued contact with C until August 2013.
On August 19, 2013, the Defendant, who became aware of such a fact, drafted a letter stating that “C and Kakaoooo will not communicate or communicate with the Plaintiff, including D and C, text, and telephone.”
Nevertheless, until April 2016, the Defendant sent and received a message containing the content of expressing sexual intercourse with C.
E. The plaintiff maintains a matrimonial relationship with C until now.
[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. The act that a third party who is liable for damages causes mental pain to the spouse by committing an unlawful act with the spouse of the married couple, thereby infringing on the common life of the married couple falling under the essence of the marriage or interfering with the maintenance thereof and infringing on the spouse's right as the spouse, constitutes tort in principle.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2013Meu2441, May 29, 2015; 2004Da1899, May 13, 2005). “Cheating” in this context refers to a wider concept, including the adultery, that does not reach the common sense, but does not reach the common sense, and includes any unlawful act that is not faithful to the husband’s duty of mutual assistance. Whether it is an unlawful act ought to be evaluated in consideration of the degree and situation of the specific case.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Meu68, Nov. 10, 1992). According to the above facts, the defendant is aware that C is a spouse.