beta
Text
1. The defendant's KRW 15,000,000 and its amount are 5% per annum from September 26, 2020 to January 26, 2021, and its amount.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On July 20, 2004, the Plaintiff and C have two children under the slurbly with the legal couple who reported the marriage.
B. The Defendant, despite being aware of the fact that C is a spouse due to marriage, committed an unlawful act, such as interfering with C from February 2017, and going to travel with C several times.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 17 (including various numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings
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 and infringing on a spouse’s right as the spouse, thereby causing mental distress to the spouse, constitutes a tort (see Supreme Court Decision 201Meu2997, Nov. 20, 201). An unlawful act committed by a spouse under Article 840 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act is deemed an unlawful act by a spouse under Article 840 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act.
“Along with a broad concept including the gap, it includes all unlawful acts that do not reach the gap between husband and wife, but are not faithful to the marital duty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Meu7, May 24, 198). Whether an act is an unlawful act or not must be evaluated in consideration of the degree and circumstances depending on each specific case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Meu4095, Nov. 28, 2013). B. According to the above facts found, the defendant maintained an inappropriate relationship with C even though he/she is a spouse of C, and the defendant was aware that he/she is a spouse of C, thereby infringing upon the Plaintiff’s common life or interfering with the maintenance thereof.
Therefore, it is clear in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff suffered a considerable amount of mental suffering. Thus, the defendant is obliged to pay compensation for the mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff in money.
(c)
We examine the amount of consolation money to be paid by the defendant.