beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 6,00,000 as well as the annual rate of KRW 5% from June 8, 2018 to October 30, 2018 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. A third party shall not interfere with a married couple’s communal living which is equivalent to the nature of the marriage, such as interfering with a couple’s communal living by causing the failure of a married couple’s communal living.
In principle, a third party's act of infringing on or interfering with a marital life falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with either side of the married couple and causing mental pain to the spouse by infringing on the rights of the spouse as the spouse.
In full view of the purport of the argument in the recording file of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 11 (including each branch number), the plaintiff completed the marriage report on June 25, 2007, and the two children are reported on June 25, 2007, and the defendant, even though he/she is aware that he/she is a spouse, has committed an unlawful act on several occasions from March 2018, with the awareness that he/she is a spouse, such as sexual intercourse.
According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is liable to pay consolation money to the plaintiff, since it is obvious in light of the rule of experience that the plaintiff suffered emotional distress and thereby the plaintiff suffered emotional distress.
B. Furthermore, with regard to the amount of consolation money, it is reasonable to determine the amount of consolation money as KRW 6,000,000 in consideration of all the circumstances shown in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the health team, the marriage period of the Plaintiff and C, the existence of children under the chain, the period in which the Defendant continued to commit an unlawful act with C and C, the details and degree of the unlawful act, and the degree
Therefore, from June 8, 2018 to October 30, 2018, the following day after the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case to the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s objection against the scope of the Defendant’s obligation.