beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from November 1, 2017 to July 20, 2018.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On February 24, 2005, the Plaintiff reported the marriage with Nonparty C on February 24, 2005, and children D (E) and F (G) were born among the above C.
B. Around 2014, the said C and the Plaintiff were paid to the company located in Jeju-do, and the said C and the Plaintiff were paid to the end of the week.
C. The above C met the defendant during the period in Jeju-do, and the defendant knew that the above C is a male with his/her spouse, and he/she conspiredd with the above C.
The plaintiff and the above C, which became aware of this fact, have gone through fireation.
E. Around March 2017, the Plaintiff sent his children to Jeju-do and had them enter the same body with the above C, his father. The above D observed the appearance of the Defendant, as the father. Ultimately, around August 2017, the Plaintiff moved back his children again to Jeju-do and left it together so far.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including additional numbers), witness D's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. (1) In principle, a third party’s act of infringing on or interfering with a couple’s communal life falling under the essence of marriage and infringing on a spouse’s right as the spouse, thereby causing emotional distress to the spouse, constitutes tort.
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 201). (2) According to the facts recognized and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obliged to compensate for mental suffering suffered by the Plaintiff in cash.
(3) As to this, the Defendant asserted that, since the Plaintiff and the above C’s marital relationship had been completely broken down with the above C before maturity, they did not infringe upon or interfere with their marital relationship, but when considering the witness D’s testimony, the Defendant submitted it to the Defendant.