beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from June 28, 2017 to July 18, 2018.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On May 1, 2014, the Plaintiff is a legally married couple who completed a marriage report with D on May 1, 2014, and the Plaintiff and D have one married couple (2016).
B. After having become aware of D and the employee of business partners in early 2016, the Defendant made a trip to Gangnam or made a sexual relationship several times.
C. On May 29, 2016, the Defendant had sexual intercourse with D in Bupyeong-gu Incheon, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, the Plaintiff’s residence. The Defendant filed a claim for a summary order of KRW 2,000,000 due to the crime of intrusion upon residence on May 21, 2018.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 15 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. A) A third party’s liability for damages may not interfere with a married couple’s communal living falling under the essence of marriage by intervening in a marital life of another person. A third party’s act of infringing on, or interfering with, a married couple’s communal living falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with either of the married couple, and infringing on the spouse’s right as the spouse, thereby causing emotional distress to the spouse (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Meu2441, May 29, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the act of causing emotional distress to the spouse is, in principle, constituted tort (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Meu2441, May 29, 2015). According to the foregoing acknowledged facts, the Defendant committed an unlawful act even though having knowledge of the fact that D is in a marital relationship with the Plaintiff, thereby infringing on the Plaintiff’s
B. The period of marriage and family relationship between the plaintiff and D, the period and contents of the defendant's misconduct, which can be known in the above recognition of the scope of damages, and in particular, the defendant claimed a summary order as a crime of intrusion upon residence due to the plaintiff's misconduct at the plaintiff's residence.