beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from January 30, 2015 to June 30, 2015.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The plaintiff is a legal couple who completed the marriage report with C on March 7, 2002.
B. The Defendant became aware of C at the workplace around 2006, and after around 2013, C had been aware of the existence of his/her spouse, and became aware of the existence of his/her spouse, and thus, sexual intercourse was developed into one’s personal relationship and became void.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Where a person who has a spouse for liability for damages commits an act of adultery with another person who has a spouse for liability for damages, and as a result, causes the failure of a matrimonial relationship by separateing the spouse from his/her spouse, a third person who has committed an act of adultery with another person, shall constitute a tort against his/her spouse, and shall have a duty to compensate for mental suffering suffered by his/her spouse;
(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da1899 Decided May 13, 2005). According to the above facts, the defendant, despite being aware that he is a spouse of C, has continuously established a bad faith relationship for a considerable period, and the plaintiff's marital relationship has reached the failure of the plaintiff's marital relationship due to such acts by the defendant. Since it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff had suffered considerable mental pain, the defendant has a duty to compensate for the mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff in money.
In regard to this, the Defendant asserts that the marital relationship between the Plaintiff and C has already occurred due to the request for divorce by C around August 2012, and the act of misconduct between the Defendant and C claimed by the Plaintiff led to the failure of marital life between the Plaintiff and C, and thus, the act of the Defendant cannot be seen as an act of infringing the Plaintiff’s marital life or interfering with their maintenance, and thus, it cannot be recovered. However, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is sufficient to the extent that the marital life between the Plaintiff and C has already been extinguished and that it cannot be recovered.