beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 33,869,384 as well as 5% per annum from July 24, 2015 to July 28, 2016 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On May 11, 200, when the judgment network C (hereinafter “the deceased”) on the claim for return of unjust enrichment married with the Plaintiff and married with the Plaintiff and had D and E as his child, the Defendant was living together with the Defendant in a de facto marital relationship with the Defendant on December 13, 2014, and died on December 13, 2014; the Plaintiff’s share of inheritance, a legal spouse, was 7/9; the Defendant withdrawn KRW 17,832,065 from the deceased’s bank account; there is no dispute between the parties.
Therefore, from among the money in the above bank account, F’s share of the Defendant’s children and the deceased’s heir is KRW 3,962,681 (i.e., KRW 17,832,065 x 2/9). Thus, the Defendant is obligated to return the remainder of KRW 13,869,384 (==17,832,065 - 3,962,681) to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.
2. A third party who makes a judgment on a claim for consolation money shall not interfere with a married couple’s communal life falling under the nature of the marriage, such as intervening in a marital life of another person and causing the failure of the marital life.
In principle, a third party's act of infringing on a couple's communal life falling under the essence of marriage or interfering with the maintenance thereof and infringing on the right as the spouse's right to it and causing mental pain to the spouse shall constitute a tort.
(Supreme Court Decision 2013Meu2441 Decided May 29, 2015). The Defendant committed an unlawful act with the deceased, knowing that he/she is his/her spouse, thereby infringing on the common life of both the deceased and the deceased or interfering with their maintenance, thereby infringing on the Plaintiff’s right as his/her spouse and causing mental distress to the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for mental damage resulting therefrom.
As to this, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff had already failed the marital life between the deceased before the defendant associates with the deceased.
Although husband and wife have not yet been divorced, they are actually in fact.