beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 10,000,000 as well as the annual rate of KRW 5% from February 6, 2016 to June 10, 2016 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The plaintiff is a legally married couple who completed the marriage report with C on April 19, 2006.
B. The Defendant, despite being aware of the existence of a spouse, was developed from October 201 to the relationship with C, and came to have a bad wheels relationship, such as sexual intercourse between C and February 23, 2015.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute between the parties, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 [Evidence No. 2 (Dismissal of Evidence No. 2 (Dismissal)], since there is no dispute over the defendant's writing, the authenticity of the whole document is presumed to be established. The defendant defense that this document was made by the plaintiff's assault and intimidation, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it], and the purport of whole pleadings.
2. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant continued to establish inhuman relations for a considerable period of time with the knowledge that C is a spouse, and the plaintiff's marital relationship has come to the failure due to these acts by the defendant. Since it is obvious in light of the rule of experience that the plaintiff was suffering from considerable mental suffering, the defendant is obliged to pay the mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff in money.
B. As to this, the Defendant’s claim for damages caused by a tort shall expire by prescription if it is not exercised within three years from the date on which he/she became aware of the damage and the perpetrator; and the Plaintiff was aware of the damage and the perpetrator around April 28, 2012, accompanied by the evidence No. 2 (each note).
Therefore, the claim of consolation money in this case is asserted that the three-year statute of limitations has expired.
However, the plaintiff knew about the damage and the perpetrator of the tort of this case around April 28, 2012, and the fact that the lawsuit of this case was brought three years thereafter does not dispute between the parties, but if the damage continues to occur as a result of continuous tort, the damage is new for each day unless there are special circumstances.