beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from May 13, 2016 to December 22, 2016.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The plaintiff is a legally married couple who completed the marriage report on May 2, 1994 and C, and has a child D for a minor under the chain.
B. From September 30, 2015 to April 11, 2016, the Plaintiff continued to meet with the Defendant, by giving and receiving text messages that express or love each other over a white time between the Defendant and continuing to meet, such as giving and receiving text messages on several occasions.
C. On April 16, 2016, the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff a written confirmation of the fact that “The Defendant knowingly recognized the inappropriate relationship with C from September 2015 to April 11, 2016 (including the sex relation) so far, and affixed a seal thereon to the Plaintiff.”
[Ground for recognition] A, evidence Nos. 1, 2-1 through 5, evidence Nos. 3, and evidence Nos. 4 (a written confirmation of fact, and the defendant acknowledge the fact that the fact is sealed and sealed on the above fact-finding document). 5, evidence Nos. 8-1 through 5, evidence Nos. 8-9, evidence Nos. 11, and evidence Nos. 13 through 15, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts finding that the defendant was liable for damages, even though he was aware that he had a spouse, and continued to establish a non-humane relationship with C with C. Thus, it shall be deemed that he infringed on the common life of the plaintiff and C, which is the essence of marriage, and interfered with their maintenance. Since it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff suffered from mental suffering, the defendant is liable for compensation for mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff.
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014).B.
The defendant's defense has been judged by the defendant since then the plaintiff and C have maintained a formal marital relationship since the marital relationship has been broken down, and it does not cause the failure of the defendant.