logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2021.02.03 2020가단107183
위자료
Text

The defendant shall pay 15,00,000 won to the plaintiff and 5% per annum from March 25, 2020 to February 3, 2021.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff and C are married couple who reported their marriage on November 26, 1997.

B. On June 2016, the Plaintiff leased part of the first floor of the building located in Sejong Special Self-Governing City D owned by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, and the Defendant, at that place, engaged in the wholesale and retail business of Hens' eggs with the trade name called "E".

(c)

Defendant and C sent a close-friendly relationship. From July 2019, the Defendant and C committed unlawful acts, such as having sexual intercourse, etc.

(d)

The Plaintiff became aware of this fact around October 2019, and the Defendant also was in an inappropriate relationship with C on October 20, 2019.

Along with the fact that the message was sent, the message was sent.

E. Meanwhile, on September 27, 2019, the Defendant’s wife F also came to know of the relationship between the Defendant and C, and C and F made a written agreement to the effect that “C shall pay 15 million won as consolation money.”

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. In principle, a third party who suffered liability for damages by committing an unlawful act with a husband and wife, thereby infringing on a couple’s communal life or interfering with the maintenance thereof, and infringing on the spouse’s right as the spouse, thereby causing emotional distress to the spouse, constitutes a tort (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 201). According to the above acknowledged facts, the Defendant’s act of committing an unlawful act, including sexual intercourse with C, the Plaintiff’s spouse, constitutes an unlawful act detrimental to the peace in home against the Plaintiff. This constitutes a tort against the Plaintiff. Thus, it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the Plaintiff suffered emotional distress, and the Defendant is obligated to give money to the Plaintiff.

B. As to the amount of consolation money to be paid by the Defendant within the scope of compensation, health team, marriage period between the Plaintiff and C, details and duration of the Defendant and C’s wrongful act.

arrow