beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from April 1, 2015 to November 19, 2015.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The plaintiff and the non-party C, who completed the marriage report on September 17, 1987, have three children under the chain.
B. The Defendant came to know with C from November 2012, and thereafter, C had a sexual intercourse with C despite being aware of the spouse’s existence.
C. On June 2013, the Plaintiff came to know of the relationship with the Defendant by pursuing C around June 2013, and demanded C and the Defendant to reach any longer.
However, C and the defendant continued to maintain the bad faith until December 2014.
E. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff did not institute a divorce suit against C, taking into account the issues of children, etc.
[Evidence Evidence] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant continued to commit an illegal act with C while being aware of the existence of C's spouse, and committed a tort against the plaintiff, who is the legal spouse of C. Since it is obvious in light of the rule of experience that the plaintiff was suffering from mental suffering due to the above illegal act, the defendant is obligated to do so in money to the plaintiff.
In regard to this, the defendant alleged that C was divorced for himself, and therefore, C did not know his spouse's consent, as well as C did not necessarily have any choice but continued to have met C by intimidation by affixing the defendant's photograph, and that C was threatened by C even after considering the plaintiff's expression that C was s/he met with C and maintained the relationship with C. Thus, according to each of the statements and images of the evidence Nos. 5 and 6, the plaintiff can be acknowledged as having maintained the relationship with C by being threatened with C, and that the defendant also actively committed an act of conspiracy with C even though C was aware that C was a son, so the above argument by the defendant is not accepted.
Furthermore, regarding the amount of consolation money that the defendant should compensate for to the plaintiff.