beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from October 1, 2016 to October 28, 2016.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The plaintiff and C are legally married couple who completed the marriage report on April 26, 1989, and they have D, E, and F as children under the chain.
B. Around March 2016, the Defendant began sexual intercourses with C and brought about sexual intercourses several times from around that time until April 2016, in which the relationship with C was known to the Plaintiff.
C. The plaintiff maintains a matrimonial relationship with C until now.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6 (including partial heading number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. The act that a third party who is liable for damages causes mental pain to the spouse by committing an unlawful act with the spouse of the married couple, thereby infringing on the common life of the married couple falling under the essence of the marriage or interfering with the maintenance thereof and infringing on the spouse's right as the spouse, constitutes tort in principle.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Meu2441, May 29, 2015). According to the foregoing facts, the Defendant, despite being aware that C is a spouse, had a sexual intercourse and continued to maintain a sexual intercourse.
This constitutes an unlawful act that infringes on the right of the plaintiff as the spouse and interferes with the maintenance of marital life which is the essence of marriage.
Therefore, the defendant is liable to do so in money for mental damage suffered by the plaintiff.
B. In light of the content, degree, and period of the unlawful act committed by the Defendant and C, the influence of the unlawful act in this case on the marriage between the Plaintiff and C, the marriage period and children of the Plaintiff and C, and the age of the original Defendant, etc., the amount of consolation money that the Defendant is liable to compensate should be determined as KRW 15 million.
Therefore, the defendant is a tort of this case against the plaintiff 15 million won and the plaintiff.