beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from April 11, 2016 to June 14, 2016.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The plaintiff married with C on March 23, 1984 and has two children under the chain.
B. From around 2003, C and B have been aware that their spouses have been married with each other, and have sexual intercourses several times.
During that period, the Plaintiff became aware of the relationship between C and the Defendant on March 31, 2012, and even if C and B ceased to communicate with each other from December 2014, the Plaintiff was in contact with each other.
C. From July 30, 2009 to March 15, 2015, C remitted a total of KRW 7,2450,000 to the Defendant over 20 times. From October 1, 2015 to April 11, 2016, C sent and received 683 calls and text messages using the Defendant and mobile phone (limited to the details of sending messages) for six months.
Until now, the plaintiff and C maintain a matrimonial relationship, but they are living separately or separately.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 9 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. According to the fact of recognition of the occurrence of liability for damages under Paragraph 1, the Defendant and C had been interrupted in the middle, but the Defendant and C have been in contact with more than 683 calls and text messages for more than six months from October 1, 2015 to April 11, 2016, in addition to conducting money transactions with sexual intercourses several times from 2003 to April 11, 2016.
The above act by the defendant is a fraudulent act that harms the legal spouse's duty of good faith, and such an act causes the failure of the marriage even though the plaintiff did not proceed to divorce with C, which led to the failure of the marriage. The defendant is obliged to pay consolation money for mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff due to such an act.
B. The Defendant’s judgment on the defense of extinctive prescription has not only passed since 10 years since the last 2005, which was the time of the sex relationship, but also the relationship between the Defendant and C on March 31, 2012.