beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 10,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual interest from August 14, 2019 to February 12, 2020, and the following.
Reasons
1. A third party of a related legal doctrine shall not interfere with a married couple’s community life falling under the essence of marriage, such as interfering with a couple’s community life by causing a failure of a married couple’s community life;
In principle, a third party's act of infringing on or interfering with a marital life falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with either side of the married couple and causing mental pain to the spouse by infringing on the rights of the spouse as the spouse.
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997). Meanwhile, “illegal conduct by a spouse” under Article 840 Subparag. 1 of the Civil Act is a wider concept including adultery, which does not reach the common sense, but does not reach the common sense, and includes any unlawful conduct that is not faithful to the husband’s duty of good faith, and whether it is an unlawful conduct or not should
(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Meu4095 Decided November 28, 2013, etc.). 2. Determination
A. Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions, images, and arguments of evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 10 as to the occurrence of liability for damages, the Plaintiff: (a) was married with C on Mar. 18, 1993; and (b) the Defendant operated the indoor package in D’s trade name “E” from July 2017 to D; (c) even though having knowledge of the marital relationship between C and the Plaintiff who had been a customer from the beginning of 2019, it can be recognized that the Plaintiff committed an unlawful act with C.
According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant violated or interfered with the maintenance of the common life of the plaintiff and C, and the fact that the plaintiff suffered mental suffering is sufficiently ratified in light of the empirical rule. The defendant's improper act constitutes tort under the Civil Act.
Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay consolation money for mental damage suffered by the plaintiff.
B. The Defendant is liable for damages to the Plaintiff.