beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 16,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from October 17, 2017 to August 24, 2018 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The plaintiff is a married couple who has completed a marriage report with C, and has one child under the chain.
B. From April 2016, the Defendant, even though having knowledge that C is a spouse, was a person with the same company from around April 2016, had sexual intercourse.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements and videos (including each number in the case of a serial number, the defendant's transcript No. 3 is written by recording the unlawful recording without the defendant's consent, and thus, it is not admissible as evidence. However, under the Civil Procedure Act of Korea which adopts the principle of free evaluation of evidence, the recording tape or transcript recorded by the stenography is not admissible as evidence just because it recorded the conversation with the other party in the other party's site among the other party's site. Whether to grant a transcript belongs to the discretion of the court of fact-finding, and the defendant's above argument is without merit)'s each statement, the whole purport of oral argument.
2. Determination
A. The defendant's assertion and judgment as to the existence of the right of representation in a lawsuit are asserted to the effect that since the plaintiff's representative did not have been delegated the right of representation in the lawsuit from the plaintiff, the lawsuit in this case is unlawful as being brought by a person who has no right of representation in the lawsuit. However, in full view of the entries in the evidence No. 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff's delegation of the lawsuit in this case
B. The act of a third party making a judgment on the cause of the claim, which infringes on or interferes with a couple's communal life falling under the essence of marriage and infringes on a spouse's right as the spouse, thereby causing mental pain to the spouse, constitutes a tort in principle.
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014). According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is the defendant.