손해배상(기)
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 18 million to the Plaintiff; and (b) 5% per annum from July 7, 2015 to November 5, 2015 to the Plaintiff.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On June 17, 2010, the Plaintiff is married with C on June 17, 2010 and has two children (5 years of age and four years of age as of the date of sentencing).
B. The Defendant, as a work bonus of C, was aware that C was a spouse, and was able to take care of C with C on March 14, 2015.
[Evidence] Evidence No. 1 to No. 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s tort committed by the Defendant, which led to the Plaintiff’s mental impulse, is liable to compensate for consolation money of KRW 30 million.
B. (1) Determination is that a third party who is liable for damages shall not interfere with a married couple’s communal living falling under the nature of marriage, such as interfering with a married couple’s communal living by interfering with another person’s communal living.
In principle, a third party's act of infringing on or interfering with a marital life falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with either side of the married couple and causing mental pain to the spouse by infringing on the rights of the spouse as the spouse.
(Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014). “Cheating” in this context refers to a wider concept, including the adultery, which does not reach the common sense, but does not reach the common sense but includes any unlawful act that does not faithfully fulfill the duty of mutual assistance of both spouses. Whether it is an unlawful act or not ought to be evaluated in consideration of the degree and situation of the specific case.
(See Supreme Court Decision 88Meu7 delivered on May 24, 198, and 92Meu68 delivered on November 10, 1992, etc.). According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant knowingly committed an unlawful act while being aware that C is a spouse, and the defendant's such an act infringed upon the plaintiff's marital relationship or interfered with the maintenance thereof. Thus, the defendant has a duty to compensate for mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff in money.
(ii).