logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2016.02.18 2015가단87533
위자료
Text

1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 10,000,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from September 26, 2015 to February 18, 2016, and the following.

Reasons

Facts of recognition

The plaintiff is a spouse who has completed the marriage report with C around September 1998 and has D(1998) and E(2002) as his child.

On March 2014, the Defendant sent a text message stating that “I have committed any crime against the death of the horse. I will not look back to this influent day. I will not influent any two minutes. I will not influence. I think I think I think I think I will inventory the text message.”

Nevertheless, around March 2015, the Defendant sent a Kakakao Stockholm message, “I wishing to go to go to oneself,” and sent the Kakao Stockholm message, “I wish to go to go to oneself,” “I wish to go to go to you,” and “I wish to go to go to you,” “I wish to go to go to you.”

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, each entry in Gap's 2-5 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings, shall not interfere with the married life falling under the essence of the marriage, such as interfering with the failure of the married life by participating in the married life of others. The third party's act of infringing on or interfering with the married life falling under the essence of the marriage by committing an unlawful act with the married couple, thereby infringing on the right of the married couple as the spouse, thereby causing mental suffering to the spouse, in principle, constitutes tort.

(Supreme Court Decision 2013Meu2441 Decided May 29, 2015). In addition, “illegal act by a spouse” under Article 840 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act is a more broad concept including the adultery and includes any and all unlawful act that does not reach the gap between husband and wife, but does not fulfill the duty of good faith (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Meu7, May 24, 1988). Whether an act constitutes an unlawful act is evaluated in consideration of the degree and circumstances depending on each specific case.

arrow