logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2019.06.13 2018가단123451
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 25,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from August 25, 2018 to June 13, 2019.

Reasons

1. In principle, acts which infringe on a married couple's communal life falling under the essence of marriage or interfere with its maintenance, and infringe on the spouse's right as the spouse's spouse and inflict mental pain on the third party's occurrence and scope of the obligation to pay consolation money shall constitute tort;

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Meu2441 Decided May 29, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Meu2441). “Cheating” in this context includes a broad concept that includes the adultery, but does not reach the common sense, includes any unlawful act that is not faithful to the husband’s duty of mutual assistance, and whether it constitutes an unlawful act ought to be evaluated by taking into account the degree and circumstances

(See Supreme Court Decision 92Meu68 Decided November 10, 1992, etc.). According to each description and image of evidence Nos. 1 through 12 (including paper numbers) of the Plaintiff and C, upon completing a marriage report on January 10, 201, the Plaintiff and C had two children; the Defendant, despite being aware of the fact that C is father and son, had maintained a relationship with C, with C, i.e., transfer of e., and sexual intercourse between December 2011 and September 2015; the Plaintiff became aware of the act of the Defendant and C around September 2015; the Plaintiff sent the Defendant a warning to arrange the relationship with C, around October 2019, the Defendant and C discontinued with C, and then suspended the Defendant’s message to C, “in fact,” i.e., within C, within C, e., e., within C, e., e., within the given period.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant continuously committed an illegal act with C for a considerable period of time, and suggested C to contact even after the plaintiff received a warning from the plaintiff due to the occurrence of fraudulent act, and thereby, the plaintiff is his spouse while infringing on or interfering with the plaintiff's common life.

arrow