beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 7,00,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from February 17, 2016 to July 13, 2016.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On August 22, 2008, the Plaintiff and C reported their marriage to the Republic of Korea, and the Plaintiff and C had their children on February 2, 2010 and July 2012.
B. While the Defendant was a part-time employee at a pharmacy, he/she received text messages from around November 2015 with C, who was a pharmacy customer, and was friendly. Around December 2015, he/she knew that C was a spouse, he/she provided one-time sexual intercourse at the DVD bank located in Seoul, and received text messages including the smuggling until around January 2016.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 6 evidence (including branch numbers in case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant committed an unlawful act such as sexual intercourse with C even though he/she is a spouse. Since it is obvious in light of the rule of experience that the plaintiff suffered a considerable mental pain due to the above illegal act by the defendant, the defendant is obliged to do so in money.
Furthermore, as to the amount of consolation money to be paid by the Defendant, comprehensively taking account of all the circumstances shown in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the health class, the background leading up to a fraudulent act, the details and degree of the fraudulent act, the period, the marriage period and family relationship of the Plaintiff and C, and the impact of the fraudulent act of the Defendant and C on the Plaintiff’s common life, it is reasonable to determine the amount as KRW 7,000,000.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 7,00,000 won as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from February 17, 2016 to July 13, 2016, which is the date of the adjudication of this case, where it is deemed reasonable for the defendant to dispute about the scope of the obligation to pay to the plaintiff as requested by the plaintiff, as a result of the illegal act, from February 17, 2016 to the date of the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case.
3. Conclusion