beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 8,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from December 8, 2016 to August 22, 2017.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. A third party shall not interfere with a married couple’s communal living which is equivalent to the nature of the marriage, such as interfering with a couple’s communal living by causing the failure of a married couple’s communal living.
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.
Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff’s report of marriage on September 30, 2015 and delivered a child around May 2016, and the Defendant committed an unlawful act by entering into C and peta relationship from October 2016 to November 2016, while having been aware that C had a spouse, with the knowledge that C had a spouse.
According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant committed an unlawful act with C while being aware that C has a spouse, and thereby infringed upon C and C's right as the plaintiff's spouse and interfered with the maintenance of joint life between C and C, and thereby infringed upon the plaintiff's right as the plaintiff's spouse. Since it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff suffered mental pain, the defendant is liable to pay
B. Furthermore, with regard to the amount of consolation money, it is reasonable to determine the amount of consolation money as KRW 8,000,000 in consideration of all the circumstances shown in the arguments in the instant case, such as the health team, the marriage period of the Plaintiff and C, the existence of children under the chain, the period in which the Defendant continued to commit a fraudulent act with C and C, the developments and degree of the fraudulent act, and the degree
Therefore, from December 8, 2016, which was the day following the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case to the Plaintiff, the Defendant raised an objection against the scope of the Defendant’s obligation from December 8, 2016, which was the date of the sentencing of this case, on August 22, 2017.