beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 8,00,000 as well as its annual 5% from January 30, 2019 to October 23, 2019 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The plaintiff and C are legally married couple who completed the marriage report on June 26, 1994, and have two children under the chain.
B. From around 2012, the Defendant, despite being aware of his spouse’s existence, maintained the relationship with C, by holding a meeting with an individual South Korea.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 to 8, images, the purport of whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. In principle, a third party who is liable for damages causes mental pain to the spouse by committing an unlawful act with the spouse, thereby infringing on or impeding a couple's communal life falling under the essence of marriage and infringing on the spouse's right as the spouse.
At this time, the term "illegal act" is a broad concept including the adultery, which does not reach the gap between the parties, but includes all illegal acts that are not faithful to the husband's duty of mutual assistance, and whether it is an illegal act or not shall be evaluated in consideration of the degree and situation of the specific case.
According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant, despite being aware of the existence of a spouse, committed an unlawful act such as having C and a long-term individual met with C, thereby infringing on the essence of marriage or interfering with the maintenance thereof, infringing on the plaintiff's right as the spouse, and thereby infringing on the plaintiff's right as the plaintiff's spouse. Thus, the defendant has a duty to act in money against the plaintiff, since it is obvious in light of the rule of experience that the plaintiff suffered severe mental pain.
B. With respect to the amount of consolation money within the scope of compensation, it shall be determined by taking into account the various circumstances shown in the arguments of this case, including the health team, the content and degree of the act of misconduct confirmed in this case, the marriage period and family relationship of the plaintiff and C, and the influence of the plaintiff and C's marital life.