beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 30,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from December 6, 2016 to the date of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The plaintiff is the husband of C who completed the marriage report with C on December 17, 1998.
B. Around May 2016, the Defendant sent and received Kakakao Stockholm messages with obscene content that seem to suggest a sexual relationship with C, and on July 11, 2016, even though having known this fact and promised not to contact C again, the Defendant again continued to provide C and Kakao Stockholm messages with obscene content around August 2016.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The judgment-making third party shall not interfere with a married couple's community life falling under the essence of marriage, such as interfering with a couple's community life by causing a failure of a married couple's community life;
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 en banc Decision 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014, and Supreme Court Decision 2004Da1899 Decided May 13, 2005, etc.). According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant committed an unlawful act with C with his/her spouse. Since it is apparent in light of the empirical rule that the Plaintiff, who is the spouse of C, suffered considerable mental pain due to the Defendant’s tort, the Defendant is obliged to pay money or consolation for mental harm suffered by the Plaintiff.
With respect to the amount of consolation money, the health unit, the marriage life period of the Plaintiff and C, the period and degree of the unlawful act committed by the Defendant and C, the degree that the unlawful act by the Defendant and C affected the Plaintiff, and even though the Defendant promised not to contact the Plaintiff again on July 11, 2016, the Defendant continued the unlawful act, and even up to now, appears in the form of death and reflect against the Plaintiff.