beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 7,00,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from January 29, 2019 to May 23, 2019, and the following.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff and C are legally married couple who completed the marriage report on May 11, 2009 and have two children under the chain.
Around May 2018, the Defendant became aware of C while working in a store operated by C at the Gu and Si around that time, and was aware of C having a spouse.
The Defendant has established a non-wheeled relationship with C as C in Jeju-do from August 2018 to October 2018.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant committed an unlawful act with C and C, the spouse of the plaintiff, and infringed the plaintiff's marital life. The plaintiff suffered mental suffering, and the defendant is liable to pay consolation money of KRW 31,00,000 and delay damages to the plaintiff as compensation for damages caused by such unlawful act.
3. The judgment-making third party shall not interfere with a married couple's community life falling under the essence of marriage, such as interfering with a couple's community life by causing a failure of a couple's community life;
In principle, a third party's act of infringing on or interfering with a marital life falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with either side of the married couple and causing mental pain to the spouse by infringing on the rights of the spouse as the spouse.
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014, etc.). According to the foregoing legal principles, according to the health team and the above facts of recognition, the Defendant maintained an inappropriate relationship with the Plaintiff between August 2018 and October 2018, and committed an act of infringing upon and obstructing the maintenance of the marital life of the Plaintiff and C, and the Plaintiff suffered emotional distress due to the Defendant’s tort is obvious in light of the empirical rule, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff a solatium amount.