beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from May 31, 2017 to February 13, 2018 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a couple who completed the marriage report with C on August 3, 2015.
B. The Defendant, as a workplace bonus of C, was aware that C was a spouse, and was sent to C as an internal relationship, such as having sexual intercourse with C from March 2017 to May 2017.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, witness C's testimony, purport of whole pleadings
2. Occurrence of liability for damages;
(a) A third party shall not interfere with a marital community which corresponds to the nature of the marriage, such as interfering with a marital community of another person by causing a failure of the marital community;
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 Decision 2013Meu2441 Decided May 29, 2015). B.
The defendant committed an unlawful act, such as establishing a sexual relationship with C, even though he is aware that he is a spouse of C, and the defendant's such an act constitutes a violation of the marital relationship between the plaintiff and C, or interfered with its maintenance. Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay the mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff in money.
3. The amount of consolation money to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff shall be KRW 15,00,000, taking into account the various circumstances shown in the pleadings, such as the scope of the liability for damages by the Defendant and C’s wrongful act, degree and duration, marriage period and family relationship between the Plaintiff and C, and impact of the Defendant’s improper act on the marriage between the Plaintiff
4. Accordingly, the Defendant’s defense as to the existence and scope of the obligation is reasonable since May 31, 2017, which was the day following the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to the Defendant as sought by the Plaintiff, as a result of the tort committed against the Plaintiff.