(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.05.23 2016가단247721

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.05.23 2016가단247721

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from October 14, 2016 to May 23, 2017.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is a legally married couple who has completed a marriage report with C, and has two children under the chain of 192 and 195.

B. The Defendant, despite being aware of the fact that C is a spouse due to marriage, has taught for about three years, such as having a sexual intercourse with C at any time at the meeting with C and her mother, and having an individual South Korea from time to time after the death of the Plaintiff.

C. On September 2016, the Plaintiff discovered a sex-related product among the belongings possessed by C, thereby pursuing C, and came to know of the appearance of C and the Defendant, and C accepted it.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the witness C's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. 1) According to the above facts of recognition, a third party’s act of infringing on a married couple’s communal life falling under the essence of marriage or interfering with the maintenance thereof and infringing on the spouse’s right as the spouse, thereby causing mental suffering to the spouse, in principle, constitutes tort (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant’s act of committing an unlawful act, including sexual intercourse with the Plaintiff’s spouse C constitutes an unlawful act detrimental to the Plaintiff’s peace in marriage or family. It constitutes tort against the Plaintiff. It is obvious in light of the empirical rule that it constitutes tort against the Plaintiff, thereby infringing on a married couple’s communal life and having suffered considerable mental suffering due to a situation in which the Plaintiff was unable to maintain a normal matrimonial relationship. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to compensate for mental suffering or to make a money.

B. As to the amount of consolation money to be paid by the Defendant within the scope of liability for damages, the health team, the period of marriage between the Plaintiff and C, the content and duration of the unlawful act between the Defendant and C, the circumstances leading up to the establishment of improper relationship between the Defendant and C, the Defendant’s attitude after the occurrence of the unlawful act,

참조판례

-대법원 2014. 11. 20. 선고 2011므2997 전원합의체 판결

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2017.04.25 2016가단123706

-서울서부지방법원 2019.01.29 2018가단224401

-대전지방법원 2019.04.02 2018나108412

-서울남부지방법원 2016.06.03 2015가단246173

-울산지방법원 2017.08.30 2017가단52230