beta
Text
The defendant's KRW 15,00,000 for the plaintiff and its 5% per annum from August 23, 2020 to November 18, 2020, and the following.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On June 12, 2014, the Plaintiff is between C and the married couple who completed the marriage report.
B. From October 2019, the Defendant became aware of the fact that C was a father-son, and became a father-in-law relationship with the Defendant.
C. Around that time, C had a head of office with the Defendant’s sexual intercourse.
[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The act, in principle, of infringing on a couple's communal life falling under the essence of marriage or interfering with the maintenance thereof and infringing on the spouse's rights, causing mental pain to the spouse by a third party who committed an unlawful act with the spouse of the married couple, constitutes tort.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Meu2441 Decided May 29, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Meu2441). “Cheating” refers to any other wrongful act deemed not to be faithful to the husband’s duty of sexual good faith, even if it includes the adultery, and did not reach the common sense as a
(see Supreme Court Decision 2010Meu4095, Nov. 28, 2013). According to the above facts, the Defendant, despite being aware of the circumstances of his/her spouse, had sexual intercourse with C while teaching with C. This constitutes an unlawful act infringing on communal life of both spouses, interfering with their maintenance, and infringing on the Plaintiff’s rights as the spouse.
Since it is apparent that the plaintiff suffered from mental suffering, the defendant is liable to do so in money.
B. As to the amount of consolation money within the scope of compensation for damages, it is reasonable to determine the amount of consolation money as KRW 15,00,000 in light of all the circumstances shown in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the marriage period and state of the Plaintiff and C, the period and degree of fraudulent act, the influence of fraudulent act on the state of marriage between the Plaintiff and C, and the circumstances after
Therefore, the defendant is against the plaintiff.