beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff, Defendant B, and Defendant C, as Defendant C, KRW 12,000,00 and each of them from July 13, 2018 to April 4, 2019.
Reasons
1. According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 20, and the purport of witness Eul's testimony and arguments, the plaintiff (the plaintiff 1977 birth) is the husband D (the 1976 birth) and the legal couple who has completed a marriage report in 2008. The defendant B, a female, has maintained improper relations, such as engaging in sexual intercourse with D for about two years even though D was aware that D was a married woman since 2016, and the defendant C, a female, has maintained improper relations, such as engaging in sexual intercourse with D for about four to five months, even though D was aware that D was a married woman.
2. Determination
A. The Defendants’ duty to pay consolation money shall not interfere with the marital life falling under the nature of the marriage, such as where the third party involved in the marital life of another person, thereby causing the failure of marital life.
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.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Meu2441 Decided May 29, 2015). Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to compensate for the emotional distress of each Plaintiff.
Furthermore, the amount of consolation money shall be determined to the extent of KRW 15 million, Defendant C12 million, in consideration of all the circumstances, including the following: (a) the Plaintiff and D’s marriage period, marital relationship, the period of restriction to D and D; and (b) the Defendants were to proceed to divorce after the Plaintiff became aware of the transit of the instant case according to D’s testimony.
B. As to the Defendants’ assertion on the failure of marriage between the Defendants, the Defendants asserted that the limitation on the relation with D does not constitute a tort against the Plaintiff, since the marriage between the Plaintiff and D has already been broken down at the time of the Defendants’ institution of cooperation with D, and thus, it is impossible for the Defendants to recover.