beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 10,000,000 as well as the annual rate of KRW 5% from September 2, 2016 to February 9, 2017 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts below the facts are not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the entries and videos in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7, 8, and 9. The entries and videos in the evidence Nos. 12-1 and 2-2 are insufficient to recognize that the defendant maintained a relationship with Eul, beyond the period that the defendant had maintained a relationship with Eul, until April 8, 2016 or August 9, 2016, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
The Plaintiff and Nonparty C are legally married couple who completed the marriage report on March 24, 2015, and have no child between them.
B. The Defendant, from July 2015 to February 2016, had a sexual intercourse with C while working at the same workplace. On November 2015, the Defendant retired from the post of early death with C, and maintained the relationship with C from around that time to around September 2016 while coming to Jeju-do.
2. Determination:
A. A. A third party of the relevant legal doctrine shall not interfere with a married couple’s communal living falling under the nature of the marriage by intervening in a couple’s communal living of another person and causing the failure of the couple’s communal living.
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.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). B.
(1) According to the above facts and evidence, the defendant knew of the fact that he had a spouse C, and thereby committed an unlawful act with C, thereby infringing upon and hindering the maintenance of the marital life of the plaintiff and C. As such, it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff suffered mental suffering, the defendant is obliged to pay the mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff in money. 2) As to this, the defendant was not aware of the fact that C was the father-child, and 2) the defendant was not aware of the fact that C was the father-child.