beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 5,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from June 17, 2015 to October 7, 2015.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The plaintiff and C are legally married couple who completed the marriage report on August 23, 1986.
B. The Defendant, despite being aware of the existence of a spouse, maintained an internal relationship with C by committing an unlawful act, etc. from March 2012 to May 2014.
C. The plaintiff maintains a matrimonial relationship with C until now.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries or videos of Gap's evidence 1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. An act of a third party making a judgment with a spouse's unlawful act, thereby infringing on or interfering with a couple's communal life falling under the essence of marriage and infringing on the spouse's rights thereby causing mental pain to the spouse, constitutes a tort;
(2) In the case of this case, the Defendant suffered mental pain from the Plaintiff by committing an unlawful act with the Plaintiff’s spouse. As such, the Defendant is obligated to do so in cash and in a tort. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff money. The following circumstances, namely, the content and circumstances of the unlawful act, the Defendant’s refusal to meet with C, and the Defendant’s refusal to meet with C, and the Defendant’s family and the Plaintiff appears to have become aware of the relationship with the Defendant’s Defendant’s Defendant’s Defendant’s family and C, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s grounds for recognition and the details of the unlawful act; (b) the Defendant’s refusal to meet with C; and (c) the Defendant’s refusal to engage in the relationship with C; and (d) the Plaintiff has maintained marriage with C, the consolation money shall be determined as KRW 5 million.
As to this, the defendant committed an unlawful act with D because the marital relationship between the plaintiff and D has already been broken down.
Although the plaintiff's right is not infringed, it is not sufficient to recognize that the marriage relationship between the plaintiff and D had been in the state of failure, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.