beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 5,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from November 5, 2014 to December 2, 2014.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. In a case where a person who has a spouse and a person who has been a spouse commits an act of adultery with the other spouse, and thereby causes the failure of the marriage due to the other spouse's separate removal or divorce, a third party who has committed an act of adultery with the other spouse constitutes a tort against the other spouse, and accordingly, the other party is liable to compensate for the mental suffering suffered by the other spouse (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da1899, May 13, 2005). If the purport of oral argument lies in each of the statements (including each number number; hereinafter the same shall apply) as stated in subparagraphs 1 through 9, the defendant was aware that the other spouse is the non-party C, and the other party's act was divorced from the other party's marriage due to the other party's act, and therefore, the plaintiff's act is obviously obvious in light of the rule of experience that the plaintiff suffered a considerable mental suffering, and the defendant has a duty to compensate for the mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff.
B. As to this, it is reasonable to view that the defendant renounced all the property formed by the plaintiff during the marital life (or at the time of preparation of a notarial deed) in divorce with C, and renounced all the claim for consolation money due to the instant simple act against C in the future on the condition that the child support was paid. Since C, a joint tortfeasor, alleged to the effect that the defendant was exempted from liability as long as the agreement was reached between the plaintiff and the plaintiff, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff renounced all the claim for consolation money against C, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the above argument by the defendant on the premise that it is without merit.
Even if some of the property granted in the process of divorce by the defendant's argument was paid as consolation money, it has already been paid as consolation money.