1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,00,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from November 21, 2019 to May 7, 2020.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The plaintiff and C are legally married couple who completed the marriage report on May 12, 2009, and have two children under the chain.
B. Around December 2017, the Defendant became aware of C at a sports center and became aware of C’s spouse, and became aware of C’s existence, the Defendant was committed as a chain of relationship, such as Plaintiff’s her death, or giving and receiving a call or message. From August 2019, the Defendant was also going to the telecom.
C. Around September 2019, the Plaintiff became aware of the relationship between C and the Defendant and demanded the Defendant to adjust the relationship between C and the Defendant, but the Defendant and C, even after the Plaintiff’s death, were put to the Defendant and C at the Mandonael.
As a result, the plaintiff shows symptoms, such as depression, inorganic certificate, and influence, etc., he/she is receiving mental treatment from December 3, 2019.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, or entries in Gap evidence 1 to 22 (including additional numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination; a third party shall not interfere with a married couple’s communal living falling under the essence of marriage by intervening in a married couple’s communal living of another person; and a third party’s act of infringing on or maintaining a married couple’s communal living falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with one of the married couple, thereby interfering with the maintenance of the married couple’s communal living and infringing on the spouse’s right as the spouse, in principle, constitutes tort.
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014, etc.). According to the aforementioned facts, the Defendant, even though having knowledge of the existence of a spouse C, maintained the relationship with C while maintaining the relationship with C, constitutes a tort against the Plaintiff as an unlawful act that interferes with the common life of the Plaintiff and C, infringes upon the Plaintiff’s spouse’s rights, and thereby, constitutes a tort against the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant has a duty to compensate for the emotional distress suffered by the Plaintiff.