logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안양지원 2016.08.26 2016가단100636
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 10,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from February 26, 2016 to August 26, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is C and the legal couple who reported marriage on June 20, 1990.

B. The Defendant had sexual intercourses through C and C around August 2015, and thereafter had contact with each other.

C. The Plaintiff and C are not divorced.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 to 11 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The act of a third party making a judgment by committing an unlawful act with the spouse to infringe on or interfere with common life of the married couple falling under the essence of marriage and to inflict mental pain on the spouse by infringing on his/her right as the spouse, constitutes a tort in principle;

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997). “Unlawful act committed by a spouse” under Article 840 Subparag. 1 of the Civil Act is a wider concept including a adultery, and does not reach the common sense, but includes any unlawful act not conforming to the husband’s duty of good faith (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Meu7, May 24, 198). Whether an act constitutes an unlawful act ought to be evaluated in consideration of the degree and circumstances of each specific

(2) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the marriage between the Plaintiff and C by doing an unlawful act with the Plaintiff’s spouse, and thereby causing emotional distress to the Plaintiff. In so doing, it is sufficient to view that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the marriage between the Plaintiff and C, or by interfering with the maintenance thereof.

Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay a reasonable amount of consolation money to the plaintiff in order to compensate the damages caused by the above tort.

As to the amount of consolation money, it shall be reasonable to determine consolation money in KRW 10,000,00 in consideration of various circumstances shown in the entire pleadings, such as health class, the degree and period of fraudulent acts committed by the defendant and C, and the contents thereof.

Therefore, the defendant shall pay consolation money of KRW 10,000,000 to the plaintiff and this.

arrow