Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff, as well as 5% per annum from July 30, 2019 to November 26, 2019; and (b).
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is his/her legal spouse who married with C on November 3, 2018 and completed the marriage report on November 12, 2018.
B. From May 2018, the Defendant attended the marriage ceremony between the Plaintiff and C on November 3, 2018, when he was aware of C through open opening from May 3, 2018, and agreed with C by exchanging contact with each other for about seven months after he became aware of the fact that C is the father and son, and having sexual intercourse with C.
[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions and images of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. In principle, the act of a third party causing damage to a couple's communal life, which is the essence of marriage, by committing an unlawful act with the husband's or wife, or interfering with the maintenance thereof and infringing on the spouse's right as the spouse, constitutes a tort. Thus, according to the above acknowledged facts, the defendant is liable for damages caused by a tort against the plaintiff's mental suffering.
3. The above facts and the following circumstances revealed from the evidence as seen earlier: (a) although the defendant attended the marriage ceremony of the plaintiff and C directly and clearly recognizes the fact that C is married, the frequency or degree of fraudulent act, such as continuing contact with the plaintiff and having sexual intercourses with C for 7 months after he was aware of the fact that C is married with his father; (b) the plaintiff seems to have suffered a significant mental suffering due to his considerable shock; and (c) the defendant cannot be said to be continuously suffering from C's emotional distress even though C attempted to discontinue his relationship after marriage with the plaintiff; (d) there are no circumstances to deem that the defendant made efforts to adjust the inappropriate relationship with C before the plaintiff's wrongful act was discovered; and (e) according to the statement in the evidence No. 6, it is difficult to deem that the defendant continued an inappropriate relationship without the defendant's choice due to C's difficulty; and (e) the marriage period and this case of the plaintiff and C.