logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2020.12.21 2020가단62404
위자료
Text

1. The defendant's KRW 7,00,000 and its amount shall be 5% per annum from September 4, 2020 to December 21, 2020 to the plaintiff.

Reasons

The plaintiff's assertion is a married couple on July 14, 2010.

From C and in 2017, the Defendant committed an illegal act and thereby suffered mental damage to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money for mental damage to the plaintiff.

Judgment

A third party who has a liability for damages shall not interfere with a married couple's communal life, which is the essence of marriage, such as interfering with a couple's communal life by causing a failure of a couple's communal life.

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.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014, etc.). Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of pleadings as to the entries and videos (including paper numbers) in the evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the Plaintiff was a legally married couple who reported the marriage on July 14, 2010, and C and the Defendant committed an unlawful act from December 2016 to May 2020 (in the middle, there was a period of gap of about one year, but the Defendant did not dispute over this point).

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the defendant caused mental harm to the plaintiff by committing unlawful acts with C.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money to the plaintiff as compensation for mental damage.

Considering the fact that the plaintiff and C were engaged in an illegal act for a considerable period of time between the plaintiff and C, their family relationship, the age, occupation, and the defendant, which have shown in the above recognition scope of the liability for damages, the plaintiff seems to have suffered mental impulses due to the illegal act of the defendant and C.

arrow