beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 12,00,000 as well as the annual rate of KRW 5% from May 9, 2017 to September 1, 2017 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Basic Facts
A. The Plaintiff is a married couple with C on August 18, 2016.
B. From February 2017, the Defendant began with the knowledge of being a spouse of C, and developed the relationship with the Defendant, such as having sexual intercourse several times at the Defendant’s home, etc., and having frequently exchanged the Kakakao Stockholm and the text messages, which was discovered to the Plaintiff around April 2017.
[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry and video of Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and occurrence of damages liability for the whole pleadings
A. A third party shall not interfere with a couple’s community life falling under the essence of marriage by intervening in a couple’s community life of another person and causing failure of a couple’s community life. A third party’s act of infringing upon or interfering with a couple’s community life falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with one of the married couple, and infringing on a spouse’s right as a spouse, thereby causing mental distress to the spouse, constitutes tort in principle (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). In this case, “unlawful act” refers to a broad concept that includes adultery and includes adultery, but does not reach the adultery, any unlawful act that does not comply with the marital duty of the married couple, and whether it is an unlawful act shall be evaluated in consideration of the degree and circumstances depending on the specific case.
(See Supreme Court Decision 88Meu7 delivered on May 24, 198, and Supreme Court Decision 92Meu68 delivered on November 10, 1992, etc.) B.
Examining the above facts in light of the above legal principles, the defendant committed an illegal act continuously for a considerable period with knowledge that C is a spouse, and the defendant's act constitutes an infringement of the marital relationship between the plaintiff and C, or interfered with its maintenance. Thus, the defendant's mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff is a monetary penalty.