beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from December 17, 2016 to May 26, 2017.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On April 13, 2011, the Plaintiff is a legal couple who reported marriage with C on April 13, 201, and has one child under the chain.
B. Around February 2016, the Defendant became aware of C, which is the head of the branch, while entering the D store, and thereafter, from April 2016 to September 2016, the Defendant knew of C’s spouse’s existence, and even from around September 2016, the Defendant was aware of C’s sexual intercourse with C, and was given a Kakao Stockholm message like a year.
C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff and C maintain their current matrimonial relationship.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 9 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. 1) The third party's act of infringing on or interfering with the common life of the married couple falling under the essence of the marriage by committing an unlawful act with the married couple, and infringing on the spouse's right as the spouse, and thereby inflict mental pain on the spouse, constitutes a tort in principle. According to the above acknowledged facts, the defendant is liable for compensating the Plaintiff for mental pain caused by committing an unlawful act, such as a sexual intercourse with the Plaintiff's spouse from April 2016 to September 2016. Accordingly, the defendant is liable for compensating the Plaintiff for mental suffering. 2) As to this, the defendant alleged to the purport that "the marriage between the Plaintiff and C was already in a state of failure since the date when the defendant met C, or that "the defendant believed that the marital relationship with the Plaintiff was in a state of failure at the time when the marriage with the Plaintiff was in a state of failure, and thus the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim because he committed an unlawful act with C and the defendant, but there is no evidence to support the above argument.
B. All circumstances, such as the above recognition scope and pleading, the process and period of marital life of the Plaintiff and C, the period and degree of the Defendant’s improper act, and the impact of the Defendant’s improper act on the marriage between the Plaintiff and C.