beta
(영문) 광주지방법원순천지원 2015.05.13 2014가단76742

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 10,000,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from December 16, 2014 to May 13, 2015.

Reasons

1. Facts [Grounds for recognition] Gap's evidence 1 to 5, Eul's evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings is C and the legal couple who reported marriage on July 22, 2005.

C From October 2014, it started with the Defendant, a contract-based employee of the same workplace, and divided the telephone communications several times thereafter, and had a sexual relationship.

2. The occurrence of the liability for damages caused by a panel: According to the above facts of recognition, C's act constitutes a tort committed against the plaintiff, who is the spouse of C, inasmuch as the defendant took part in such unlawful act, thereby destroying fundamental trust between husband and wife and neglecting the duty of mutual assistance as a husband and wife.

Since the plaintiff is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff suffered mental pain due to the above tort, the defendant is obligated to give a monetary reward to the plaintiff.

The scope of liability for damages: The amount shall be set at KRW 10,00,000, considering the various circumstances shown in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the marriage period of the Plaintiff and C, the period and degree of the unlawful act committed by C and C, the legal relationship between the Plaintiff and C is maintained, the age and occupation of the Defendant, and the circumstances before and after the instant lawsuit.

In the lawsuit, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff damages of KRW 10,00,000 as damages and damages for delay from December 16, 2014 (the day following the delivery day of the complaint) to the day of full payment (the defendant's objection as to the existence and scope of the obligation. Thus, the Civil Procedure Promotion Act has the obligation to pay the plaintiff damages from the day following the adjudication of this case).

3. The plaintiff's claim for the conclusion is partly accepted within the scope of the above recognition.