beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 18,00,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from November 17, 2016 to June 23, 2017.
Reasons
Basic Facts
A. The Plaintiff is a married couple with C on April 24, 2001.
B. From December 12, 2013, the Defendant, despite being aware that C is a spouse of C and an elementary school, began with a private meta, developed into one another’s relationship with each other, and led to frequent sexual intercourse with lodging in a Moel, etc., and continued to have a frequent sexual intercourse with accommodation in a Moel, etc., and was traveling in the Gangwon Islands, Pacos, and Makao.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-2, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 6
A. A third party shall not interfere with a couple’s community life falling under the essence of marriage by intervening in a couple’s community life of another person and causing failure of a couple’s community life. A third party’s act of infringing upon or interfering with a couple’s community life falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with one of the married couple, and infringing on a spouse’s right as a spouse, thereby causing mental distress to the spouse, constitutes tort in principle (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). In this case, “unlawful act” refers to a broad concept that includes adultery and includes adultery, but does not reach the adultery, any unlawful act that does not comply with the marital duty of the married couple, and whether it is an unlawful act shall be evaluated in consideration of the degree and circumstances depending on the specific case.
(See Supreme Court Decision 88Meu7 delivered on May 24, 198, and Supreme Court Decision 92Meu68 delivered on November 10, 1992, etc.) B.
Examining the above facts in light of the above legal principles, the defendant committed an illegal act continuously for a considerable period with knowledge that C is a spouse, and the defendant's act constitutes an infringement 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.