logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원경주지원 2015.05.19 2014가단5398
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 7,00,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual amount of KRW 5% from November 18, 2014 to May 19, 2015.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and C shall complete the marriage report on June 25, 2003, and have two women under their chains.

B. Around March 2012, the Plaintiff found in the new wall that C was on board the Plaintiff’s pro-friendly job offering with the Defendant, and thereafter C took a meal and drink with the Defendant around March 2013, and took a witness around June 2014.

C. From July 2014, the Plaintiff confirmed that C was frequently dump in the studio located D at the time of the racing where the Defendant was a mixed person, and confirmed C’s misconduct. On September 15, 2014, the Plaintiff found C’s studio at around 23:30, and entered C’s door to open door several doors. At the time, C and the Defendant were at the same time cut in the above studio, and then C asked C to “I am fump,” “I am fump,” and then asked C to “I am fump.,”

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence 1, 2, 3, 4-1 through 8, 5, Gap's evidence 6-1, 2, 7-2, witness's testimony or video, witness F's testimony or whole purport of pleading

2. The "illegal act committed by a spouse" under Article 840 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Act refers to a broad concept, including the adultery, which does not reach the gap, but includes any unlawful act that does not faithfully fulfill the marital duty (see Supreme Court Decision 88Meu7, May 24, 198). With respect to this case, according to the health class, it cannot be readily concluded that the defendant and C have livered, but it is sufficient to conclude that C has committed an unlawful act that did not fulfill the marital duty as well as the marital duty from the close to the defendant, and the defendant is determined to have participated in such unlawful act.

As a result, it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff suffered considerable mental suffering, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money to the plaintiff.

2.3.

arrow