beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 12,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from November 9, 2018 to April 3, 2019.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including branch numbers) and the arguments, the Plaintiff and C were legally married couples who reported marriage on November 26, 2013, and C and the Defendant continued to have met with her husband on April 2018, as the space they came to know from January 26, 2016, including sexual intercourses between the Defendant and C and the Defendant, which came to know from Apr. 2018, and the Defendant’s husband D filed a lawsuit against Changwon District Court 2018ddan 12319 damages against her husband, and it is recognized that C was sentenced to a judgment to pay consolation money of KRW 25 million to D and that it became final and conclusive.
2. Applicable Laws and Determination
A. In principle, a third party's act of infringing on or interfering with a couple's communal life falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with the spouse, and infringing on the spouse's right as the spouse, thereby causing mental pain to the spouse constitutes a tort.
(1) In light of the aforementioned facts, it is reasonable to judge that the Plaintiff committed an unlawful act, such as continuing to meet with the Defendant, while having sexual intercourse with the Defendant. Inasmuch as it is apparent in light of the empirical rule that the Defendant’s participation in C’s unlawful act has suffered considerable mental suffering, the Defendant is obliged to pay for mental suffering suffered by the Plaintiff in money.
B. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff and C did not have any duty of care for the mental suffering of the plaintiff.
However, in full view of the fact that the Defendant first met C through Ma, and that E was well aware of the fact that C was married to her husband and wife, and that C and C continued her relationship at least once a week for more than two years, the Defendant was fully aware of the fact of maintaining the marriage between the Plaintiff and C.
I would like to say.
3. The scope of the damage and further the scope of the damage.