logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.03.30 2016가단5027385
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 10,000,000 for the Plaintiff and the following: 5% per annum from February 23, 2016 to March 30, 2017.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff and C are the legal couple who reported their marriage on July 26, 2001, and they have both parties.

B. The Defendant, while knowing that C is a person who is married and is a spouse, used the word “E-mail and Kakakao Stockholm” from June 2013 and sent and received e-mail or Kakao Stockholm messages.

C. After becoming aware of the relationship with the Defendant with C, the Plaintiff filed a claim for damages against the Defendant under this court’s 2014da5253791.

On December 8, 2014, the Defendant drafted a letter to the Plaintiff that he/she would not meet or contact with C (hereinafter “each letter of this case”) in the course of the instant lawsuit, and paid 4.9 million won as consolation money.

E. However, C and the Defendant came to contact again after the completion of the instant letter.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy Facts, Gap's statements in Gap's Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, and 11, Eul's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination, the defendant is deemed to have committed an unlawful act that infringes upon the plaintiff's marital life with C and caused mental suffering to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money for mental suffering to the plaintiff.

The consolation money shall be determined as KRW 10,00,000 in full view of the contents and period of the unlawful act committed by the Defendant and C, the developments leading up to the instant lawsuit, the response of the Defendant and C, the degree of contribution by the Plaintiff’s spouse C, and all other circumstances that were in the pleadings of the instant case.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit.

arrow