beta
Text
1. The defendant's KRW 30,000,000 and about this, 5% per annum from January 3, 2020 to November 24, 2020 to the plaintiff, and the following.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a legally married couple who completed a marriage report with C on June 4, 2012, and three children are under the chain.
B. C came to know of the Defendant as the Defendant was serving as a fitnesser, and was engaged in meals or driving cars by communicating with him, and was in a sexual relationship.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 6, 9, and 10, Gap evidence 11, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The act of a third party making a judgment by committing an unlawful act with the spouse to infringe on or interfere with common life of the married couple falling under the essence of marriage and to inflict mental pain on the spouse by infringing on his/her right as the spouse, constitutes a tort in principle;
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014, etc.). According to the aforementioned facts, the Defendant, despite being aware that C is a spouse, committed an unlawful act, such as having a sexual intercourse, and having a sexual intercourse, thereby infringing on or interfering with the community life of the Plaintiff and C, is liable to compensate for mental suffering suffered by the Plaintiff.
Furthermore, in full view of all the circumstances revealed in the records and arguments, such as the marriage period of the Plaintiff and C, family relations, the background of the instant case, the period and degree of fraudulent act by the Defendant and C, and the Plaintiff’s attitude after becoming aware of the fraudulent act by the Defendant and C, it is reasonable to determine consolation money as KRW 30,000,000.
Therefore, the defendant's 30,000,000 won and the following day after the day when the copy of the complaint of this case was delivered to the defendant as the plaintiff's claim is related to the promotion of the lawsuit, etc. from January 3, 2020 to November 24, 2020, which is the date of the decision of this case, is considerable to dispute as to the existence and scope of the defendant's performance obligation.