beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. From June 2014, the Plaintiff and D lived together with the apartment located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju, and due to D’s workplace, they have been living together for a different period of time.
B. From May 2016, Defendant B maintained the relationship with D from around May 2016, and even after January 28, 2018 when the Plaintiff became aware of such fact, Defendant B made several private contacts with D.
C. On January 28, 2018, Defendant C sent text messages to the Plaintiff, which seem to have a special relationship with Defendant B and D, and thereafter sent text messages related to the two persons’ relationship to the Plaintiff several times.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap’s entries in Gap’s 1 through 5, 11 through 16, 20, 29, 30, and 32, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion and D have maintained a de facto marital relationship from June 2014.
Defendant B, even though being aware of such fact, committed a fraudulent act with D and the Plaintiff’s marital life was close to the failure, and thereby, the Plaintiff suffered mental suffering.
Defendant C suffered mental pain by continuously informing the Plaintiff of the two unlawful acts despite the Plaintiff’s detention. Defendant C suffered mental pain by continuously informing the Plaintiff of the two unlawful acts.
The Defendants’ act constitutes each tort against the Plaintiff. The Defendants are obligated to compensate for mental damages suffered by the Plaintiff.
3. Determination
A. Determination 1 on the claim against Defendant B is based on the following: (a) the act of a third party based on the standard of determination, thereby infringing on or interfering with a couple’s communal life falling under the essence of marriage and infringing on the right as a spouse, thereby causing emotional distress to the spouse, in principle, constitutes a tort (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). Such a legal doctrine is based on the foregoing.