beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 15,00,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from July 27, 2017 to November 15, 2017; and (b) the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff filed a marriage report with C on June 1, 199, and the Defendant, who had worked in the same workplace as C, even though he/she was aware that C had a spouse, committed an unlawful act, such as having metre in C and her motherel around May 3, 2017, with knowledge that C had a spouse.
2. Occurrence and scope of liability for damages;
A. A third party shall not interfere with a couple’s communal living falling under the essence of marriage by intervening in a couple’s communal living of another person and causing a failure of a couple’s communal living. A third party’s act of infringing on or interfering with a couple’s communal living falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with one of the married couple, thereby infringing on his/her right as a spouse and causing mental pain to the spouse, in principle, constitutes tort.
(Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014). B.
Examining the above facts in light of the above legal principles, the defendant committed an unlawful act with C even though he is aware that he is a spouse of C, and since the defendant's such an act infringed upon the plaintiff's marital relationship or interfered with the maintenance thereof, the defendant has a duty to care for mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff in money.
C. The amount of consolation money that the Defendant is liable to compensate for to the Plaintiff shall be determined as KRW 15 million, taking into account the various circumstances shown in the arguments, such as the content, degree, and duration of the unlawful act committed by the Defendant and C, the marriage period and family relationship between the Plaintiff and C, the Plaintiff continues to engage in the marital relationship with C, the part that the Defendant deceivings the Defendant appears to have been partly found, and the Defendant’
3. In conclusion, the defendant delivered a solatium of KRW 15 million to the plaintiff and a copy of the complaint of this case to the defendant as requested by the plaintiff after the date of the above illegal act.