beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 5,00,000, and its annual rate from December 30, 2017 to July 13, 2018, respectively, to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff and C are married couple who completed the marriage report on June 16, 2009.
(A) Evidence No. 1). (b)
The defendant has given and received the Kakao Stockholm messages as shown in the attached Form C to C and elementary school windows.
(A) On February 2, 200, the third party's act of causing mental distress to the spouse by infringing on the marital life falling under the essence of the marriage or interfering with the maintenance thereof, and infringing on the rights of the spouse as the spouse, constitutes a tort in principle.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Meu2441 Decided May 29, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Meu2441). “Cheating” in this context includes a broad concept that includes the adultery, but does not reach the common sense, includes any unlawful act that is not faithful to the husband’s duty of mutual assistance, and whether it constitutes an unlawful act ought to be evaluated by taking into account the degree and circumstances
(See Supreme Court Decision 92Meu68 delivered on November 10, 1992, etc.). The following circumstances that can be seen by adding the entire purport of the pleadings to the images listed in Annex C and No. 4 of Annex C, namely, ① the time period, frequency, and content of the Defendant’s giving and receiving the Kakakakao messages with C, the Defendant, knowing that C is his/her spouse, sent a conversation with C, which could lead to actual sexual contacts with C, and such dialogue or inferred sexual contacts cannot be said to be simple farming fences or the head of an elementary school, as the Defendant asserts, or that it cannot be deemed to be acceptable on the ground of the creation of an elementary school. ② The Defendant’s giving and receiving the Kakao messages messages, which are presumed to be in an illegitimate relationship with C, is sufficient to destroy the peace at the Plaintiff’s home, and ③ When the Defendant was filing the suit in this case, he/she should not lend his/her opportunity to make the Defendant’s home and the Defendant do not have any opportunity.