beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 20,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from October 16, 2018 to May 1, 2019, and the following.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. 1) The Plaintiff is a legally married couple who completed the marriage report with C on November 16, 2012. 2) The Defendant, despite being aware that C has a spouse, continued to engage in an unlawful act from August 2018 to October 2018, by, knowing that he/she had a spouse, including having a sexual intercourse with C.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 17, video (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
B. Determination 1) According to the above facts, 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 a spouse’s right as a spouse, which constitutes a tort in principle, and a third party has the duty to inflict mental pain on the spouse (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2013Meu2441, May 29, 2015; 2004Da1899, May 13, 2005). In light of the above facts, it is clear in light of the empirical rule that the defendant was aware that he is a spouse of C, and the plaintiff was suffering from mental pain due to such an act by the defendant.
The defendant is obligated to do so in money for mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff.
3) As to the amount of consolation money that the Defendant is obligated to compensate, there are infants between the Plaintiff and C, including the health class, the content, degree and period of the Defendant’s and C’s unlawful act, the marriage period and family relationship between the Plaintiff and C.
(4) The Defendant’s unlawful act is determined as KRW 20,000,000, taking into account the various circumstances shown in the pleadings of the instant case, including the effect that the Defendant’s couple’s communal living had on the Plaintiff’s life. 4) The Defendant, as a result of the aforementioned unlawful act, is reasonable to resist the existence or scope of the Defendant’s obligation to perform as to the Plaintiff from October 16, 2018, following the delivery of the duplicate of the complaint of the instant case to the Defendant as sought by the Plaintiff.