본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
(영문) 전주지방법원 2018.11.08 2018나841

Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked and revoked.


In fact, on December 21, 1995, the Plaintiff had two children as the legal couple who completed the marriage report with C on December 21, 1995.

The defendant knew that he had a spouse to C, and had sexual intercourse between C and C from 2010 to 2017.

On September 17, 2018, the Plaintiff had a shared agreement with C.

[Ground of recognition] The act of causing mental distress to the spouse is, in principle, a tort by a third party who is liable to compensate for damages caused by an unlawful act of Gap's evidence 1 and 9, and a fraudulent act of the entire purport of pleading, thereby infringing on or interfering with a couple's communal life falling under the essence of marriage and infringing on the rights of the spouse as a spouse.

(see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). “Cheating” in this context refers to a broad concept, including the adultery, which does not reach a common sense but does not faithfully fulfill the duty of mutual assistance of both spouses, includes any unlawful act. Whether it is an unlawful act or not ought to be evaluated in consideration of the degree and circumstances of the specific case.

(See Supreme Court Decision 88Meu7 delivered on May 24, 198, and 92Meu68 delivered on November 10, 1992, etc.). According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant committed unlawful acts with C, the spouse of the plaintiff, thereby infringing on the community life between the plaintiff and C or hindering the maintenance thereof and infringing on the plaintiff's spouse's right as the plaintiff's spouse. Accordingly, it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff suffered emotional distress, and therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay consolation money as compensation for mental damage to the plaintiff.

Furthermore, the scope and degree of the defendant's and C's improper act, duration and family relationship of the plaintiff and C, and the defendant's improper act on the plaintiff's common life.