beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 13,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from June 27, 2019 to November 15, 2019 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff and C are the legal couple with one another under the sterne after completing a marriage report on January 3, 2017.
B. On November 2017, the Defendant became aware of C at an entertainment establishment and established an inhumane relationship with the Defendant.
C. Around February 2019, the Plaintiff sent a text message to the Defendant via C’s telephone to inform the Defendant that C is a her husband and to arrange the her wheels relationship. On March 2019, the Plaintiff sent a text message to arrange the relationship with C again on or around March 2019. However, the Defendant continued to contact with C even after the call.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 7, Gap evidence 9 through 16, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The act of a third party making a judgment by committing an unlawful act with the spouse to infringe on or interfere with common life of the married couple falling under the essence of marriage and to inflict mental pain on the spouse by infringing on his/her right as the spouse, constitutes a tort in principle;
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014, etc.). According to the aforementioned facts, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant committed an unlawful act with the Plaintiff’s spouse, thereby infringing on the marital relationship between the Plaintiff and C or interfering with its maintenance, thereby suffering mental pain on the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant is obliged to bring the Plaintiff to money for emotional distress suffered by the Plaintiff.
In regard to this, the defendant asserts that C was not aware of the fact that C was her father at the time of the first arrival, and C was aware of the fact that C was her father at the time of the plaintiff's telephone on February 2019, but C was not her father after being called with C, but it was not cleanly arranged as the issue of gender appraisal seems to be knife at the time of the first arrival, and therefore, C was made a telephone without being aware of it.
However, even according to the defendant's argument, the defendant continued to contact C.