beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 18,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from November 28, 2017 to June 29, 2018, and the following.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The plaintiff is the legal spouse of the non-party C who completed the marriage report on July 30, 2007, and has two children under the chain.
B. Around March 2017, the Defendant was able to call and teach C in a bowling site located in the Council. Around April 2017, the Plaintiff discovered the Defendant’s photograph from C’s landmark, discovered C’s photograph, and stored C’s telephone machine as “in-house male” and became aware of the relationship between C and the Defendant.
C. On May 1, 2017, the Plaintiff asked the Defendant to have a fraudulent act only because C is a person with his/her spouse and children, and talked to the effect that the Defendant would no longer meet C.
The Defendant and C maintained an internal relationship even thereafter, and sent messages, including the message expressing sexual intercourse on August 3, 2017, such as “voluntary” and “kiscing kiscing kis,” etc.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 8, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. 1) In principle, a third party’s act of infringing on or interfering with the maintenance of a married couple’s community 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 emotional distress to the spouse constitutes a tort (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). According to the above acknowledged facts, the Defendant interfered with or infringed upon the maintenance of the Plaintiff’s community life by committing an unlawful act with C even though he/she knows that the spouse is a spouse ( long as he/she knew that the spouse is the spouse, it cannot be said that the establishment of the Defendant’s tort depends on whether he/she was the Plaintiff or not). Accordingly, it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the Plaintiff suffered emotional distress.