beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 10,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from April 26, 2018 to August 10, 2018, and the following.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On May 25, 2012, the Plaintiff is a legally married couple who completed the marriage report with C on May 25, 2012 and has minor children between C and C.
B. On January 17, 2017, the Defendant brought about a wrongful relationship with C from October 2016 to December 2016, 2016, compensating the Plaintiff for consolation money of KRW 10,000,000, and will not thereafter communicate or reach any other part of the business.
“The confirmation document was prepared and paid KRW 10,000,000.
C. However, after April 2017, the Defendant has given and received private contacts with C and brought them to the Republic of Korea.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
(a) A third party who has a liability for damages shall not interfere with a married couple’s communal living which corresponds to the nature of marriage, such as interfering with a couple’s communal living by causing a failure of the married couple’s communal living;
In principle, a third party's act of infringing on or interfering with a common life of a married couple falling under the essence of marriage and infringing on the spouse's rights to it and causing mental pain to the spouse by committing an unlawful act with the spouse shall constitute a tort.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Meu2441 Decided May 29, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Meu2441). “Unlawful act committed by a spouse” under Article 840 Subparag. 1 of the Civil Act is a larger concept, including a adultery, and includes any unlawful act that does not comply with the husband’s duty of good faith even if it does not reach the adultery (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Meu7, May 24, 198). According to the foregoing recognized facts, the Defendant, even though being aware of his/her spouse, has brought about her gender to the Plaintiff, and continued to exchange and maintain the Plaintiff’s community life with C while paying consolation money with the Plaintiff, and has sustained private contacts with C by an ombudsman, thereby infringing on the Plaintiff’s right as the spouse.