beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 20,000,000 per annum from September 27, 2019 to April 21, 2020, and the following.
Reasons
1. According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments by evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the Plaintiff and C are acknowledged as having been married on January 24, 2017, and the Defendant, knowing that C was a woman of her husband and wife, even from January 2019 to August 2019, only ten-15 times with C and three-time sexual intercourses are recognized.
According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant’s wrongful act committed with C constitutes a tort that infringes upon, or interferes with, the Plaintiff’s spouse’s right as the Plaintiff’s spouse (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). It is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the Plaintiff suffered heavy mental pain.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money for mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff.
2. As to the scope of liability for damages, the amount of consolation money to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff is determined as KRW 20,000,000 in consideration of all the circumstances revealed in the arguments of the instant case, including the health group, the background and period of the Defendant’s delivery of C, the degree of fraudulent act committed by the Defendant and C, the marriage period and family relationship between the Plaintiff and C, and the circumstances after the occurrence of fraudulent act.
Therefore, the Defendant, as a result of the Defendant’s tort, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at each rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from September 27, 2019 to April 21, 2020, and 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment, which is the date of service of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff from September 27, 2019 to the date of service of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.