beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 12,00,000 as well as the annual rate of KRW 5% from December 22, 2018 to April 25, 2019, and the following.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff and C are legally married couple who completed the marriage report on February 28, 1979, and have two children under the chain.
Around July 4, 2017, the Defendant became aware of C by introducing a person who operates cosmetics in an officetel where he/she resides, and around that time, he/she was aware of C having a spouse.
The Defendant has established a Buddhist relationship with C due to the attendance or travel of the above officetels between October 2017 and November 2018.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 8, purport of whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant committed an unlawful act with C and C, the spouse of the plaintiff, and the marital relationship with C, which caused mental distress. Since the plaintiff suffered mental distress, the defendant is liable to pay consolation money of KRW 31,000,000 and delay damages to the plaintiff as compensation for damages caused by such unlawful act.
3. The judgment-making third party shall not interfere with a married couple's community life falling under the essence of marriage, such as interfering with a couple's community life by causing a failure of a couple's community life;
In principle, a third party's act of infringing on or interfering with a marital life falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with either side of the married couple and causing mental pain to the spouse by infringing on the rights of the spouse as the spouse.
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014, etc.). According to the foregoing legal principles, according to the health team and the above facts of recognition as to the instant case, the Defendant maintained an inappropriate relationship between October 2017 and November 2018, and committed an act infringing upon and impeding the maintenance of the marital life of the Plaintiff and C, and the Plaintiff suffered emotional distress due to the Defendant’s tort, and therefore, the Defendant is deemed to have suffered emotional distress in light of the empirical rule.