logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.21 2014가합571804
위자료
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,00,000 as well as annual 5% from October 23, 2014 to April 21, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 30, 2002, the Plaintiff completed a marriage report with Nonparty C on September 30, 200, and has two children among them.

B. The Defendant maintained an inappropriate relationship, such as telephone conversations with C several times from March 2014 to April 2014, with knowledge that the Plaintiff and C were married, for reasons such as the Defendant’s children, the Plaintiff and C’s children are attending the same school, etc., with the knowledge that they were married.

In particular, around March 24, 2014, the defendant and C had a sex relationship while lodging in the Epenture located in Pyeongtaek-gun in Gyeonggi-do, and around April 9, 2014.

C. On April 16, 2014, the Plaintiff confirmed the details of C’s mobile phone calls and came to know of an inappropriate relationship between C and the Defendant. Since then, C prepared a divorce agreement with the Plaintiff, “C shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 1,00,000,000 to the consolation money until September 30, 2014, as it resulted in the confusion between the Defendant and the Defendant’s aforementioned wrongful act.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, each fact inquiry result of this court's case and Estecom Co., Ltd., and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

(a) A person who has a spouse for liability for damages or a person who has committed an unlawful act shall constitute a tort against his/her spouse, and shall have the obligation to inflict a mental suffering inflicted upon his/her spouse;

In addition, fraudulent acts stipulated in Article 840 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Code include all acts which are considered not to be faithful to the duty of mutual assistance of the married couple, even though they did not reach the common sense as well as the common sense.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is the father-child who is the spouse of the non-party C.

arrow