logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.02.08 2017가단208611
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 25,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from June 21, 2017 to February 8, 2018.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff and C are legally married couple who reported their marriage on November 30, 1993, and the defendant is unmarried women.

B. On March 30, 2016, the Defendant drafted each letter (hereinafter referred to as “each letter of this case”) with the purport that “I will not communicate with CC on or after March 30, 2016, and will not be responsible for the part at issue due to low time.”

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 and 6

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The plaintiff's assertion 1) The defendant committed an unlawful act, such as going through the husband's travel between C and Jeju-do and Japan, which caused mental pain to the plaintiff by infringing on or impeding the couple's common life, and thus, the plaintiff is obligated to pay consolation money to the plaintiff. 2) The defendant's assertion is merely a pre-child relationship with C, which has a different relationship with C, and therefore, the plaintiff's claim is without merit.

B. The judgment couple shall live together and have the duty to support and cooperate with each other.

(Article 826 of the Civil Act). Husband and wife, as a community in which mental, physical, or economic combination is achieved, shall have the duty to cooperate and protect each other in a comprehensive manner so that marriage as a marital community is maintained, and shall have the right to such a duty.

As such, as the content of the marital or marital life maintenance obligation, the married couple bears the sexual duty that should not commit any unlawful act.

If one side of the married couple commits an unlawful act, the other side of the married couple shall be liable for damages caused by a tort against the mental suffering which the spouse has sustained.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Meu2441, May 29, 2015). Meanwhile, a third party does not interfere with a couple’s community life, which falls under the nature of marriage, by participating in a couple’s community life, thereby causing the failure of the couple’s community.

arrow