beta
Text
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 40,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from October 19, 2019 to August 12, 2020 and from the next day.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The plaintiff is a legally married couple who completed the marriage report with C on July 11, 1997 and has two children.
B. The Defendant, despite being aware of the fact that C is a legally spouse, maintained inappropriate relations, such as engaging in sexual intercourse with C with a private male for about five years.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 20, video, purport of whole pleading
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. 1) In principle, a third party’s act of infringing on or impeding the maintenance of a married couple’s communal life falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with the spouse, and infringing on the spouse’s right as the spouse, thereby causing emotional distress to the spouse constitutes tort (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). According to the above acknowledged facts, the defendant, even though he/she is aware that he/she is a spouse, has a spouse, thereby infringing on the Plaintiff’s communal life or interfering with the maintenance thereof and infringing on the Plaintiff’s right as the spouse, barring any special circumstance, has a duty to engage in pecuniary suffering from the Plaintiff’s emotional distress. 2) The defendant asserts to the purport that, barring any special circumstance, he/she committed an unlawful act by the defendant, as he/she was aware of the actual failure of the Plaintiff’s marital relationship and received a written statement recognizing a mistake from C.
In light of the records of evidence No. 10, the fact that C prepared a letter containing the contents that acknowledge his mistake in relation to the wrongful act is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff used the Defendant’s improper act as a paper and good faith, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, the above assertion is without merit.
B. The scope of liability for damages is between the Plaintiff and C.