beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 10,000,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from April 21, 2016 to September 1, 2016; and (b) the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The plaintiff is a legal couple who has completed a marriage report with C.
B. The Defendant had an internal relationship with C from October 2013 to October 2015.
C. The Defendant’s husband, filed a lawsuit claiming consolation money on the ground that C had committed a fraudulent act with the Defendant, and the Defendant and C committed a fraudulent act in that case, the judgment was rendered that “C shall pay consolation money of KRW 10 million and its delay damages to D,” which became final and conclusive.
Meanwhile, in the process of hedging with C, the Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming consolation money against C on the ground that C was threatened with C, while filing a lawsuit claiming consolation money against C, which was recognized as a crime of intimidation by C, and a summary order ordering C to impose a fine of KRW 2 million was issued. In addition, the judgment of “C shall pay consolation money to the Defendant KRW 10 million and its delay damages.”
[Based on the recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 1 to No. 6, Evidence No. 1 to No. 6, marked facts, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The judgment-making third party shall not interfere with a married couple's community life falling under the essence of marriage, such as interfering with a couple's community life by causing a failure of a married couple's community life;
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.
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014). According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the Defendant committed an unlawful act with C with C, thereby infringing or interfering with the maintenance of a married couple’s communal life falling under the essence of marriage, and thereby causing mental suffering to the Plaintiff by infringing upon the Plaintiff’s right as the spouse to C. Thus, the Defendant is identical.