beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 25,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from November 16, 2019 to April 21, 2020, and the following.
Reasons
1. According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments by evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and 5 through 9, the Plaintiff and C are married on December 24, 2008 and two married children who are minors. The Defendant may recognize the fact that C had sexual intercourse with C several times for about two years from the end of wintering in 2017 to November 2019, even though C is aware that he/she is a woman.
According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant’s wrongful act committed against C and C constitutes a tort that infringes upon the Plaintiff’s spouse’s right as the Plaintiff’s spouse (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). It is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the Plaintiff suffered heavy mental pain.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money for mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff.
2. As to the scope of liability for damages, the amount of consolation money to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff shall be determined as KRW 25,00,000, considering all the circumstances revealed in the arguments of the instant case, such as health group, the background and period of the Defendant’s delivery of C, the degree of fraudulent act committed by the Defendant and C, the marriage period and family relationship between the Plaintiff and C, and the circumstances after the occurrence of fraudulent act.
Therefore, the defendant, as a result of the defendant's illegal act, is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the consolation money of KRW 25,00,000 and damages for delay calculated at each rate of 12% per annum under the Civil Act from November 16, 2019, which is the date following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the plaintiff, to April 21, 2020, which is deemed reasonable for the defendant to dispute as to the existence and scope of the obligation.
3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is justified.