beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from November 1, 2019 to February 20, 2020 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a legally married couple who completed the marriage report with C on April 14, 2014.
B. The Defendant works in the same workplace as C, and even after being aware that C is a spouse, from August 2019, the Defendant: (a) from around August 2019, the Defendant was named “D” as “E; (b) C was replaced by the word “E”; (c) “I wish to report”; (d) “I want to love”; and (e) “I Dona by 100 years before the breabbbb,” and “I k kis,” and maintained an inappropriate relationship.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 3 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. 1) A third party shall not interfere with a married couple’s community life falling under the essence of marriage by intervening in a married couple’s community life by causing failure of a married couple’s community life. A third party’s act of infringing on or maintaining a married couple’s community life falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with one of the married couple, and infringing on the spouse’s right as the spouse, thereby causing emotional distress to the spouse (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). 2) In principle, the Defendant constitutes a tort (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014) even though the Defendant was aware that it was a spouse of C, while maintaining an inappropriate relationship with C from around August 2019, and thus, it is obvious in light of empirical rule that the Plaintiff suffered emotional distress due to the above Defendant’s tort.
3. As to the above, the Defendant, from around August 2019 or around 2016, has already ceased to exist due to the Plaintiff’s sexual function issues and refusal of sexual intercourse, since the marital relationship between the Plaintiff and C was committed by an unlawful act with the Defendant.