beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 20,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from May 14, 2019 to November 8, 2019 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Facts of recognition
Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and arguments of Gap 1-7, the plaintiff is a legally married couple who completed the marriage report with Eul on April 2009 and produced D with Eul. The plaintiff's wife worked as a cleaning agent in the hospital. The plaintiff's wife found that Eul had a conversation with the defendant working in the same workplace with the defendant working in the same workplace, and the plaintiff discovered that Eul had a sexual intercourse with other male, and asked Eul to the effect that Eul had a sexual intercourse with other male, and C had a sexual intercourse with the other male. It is recognized that "C had a sexual intercourse with the defendant and had a sexual intercourse three times with the mother."
Judgment
According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant committed an unlawful act, such as establishing a marital relationship with C, which is one of the married couple, thereby infringing on the marital life falling under the essence of the marriage, interfering with the maintenance thereof, and infringing on the plaintiff's spouse's right as the spouse against the married couple's communal living, thereby suffering mental pain to the plaintiff (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da1899, May 13, 2005). Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money to the plaintiff for mental suffering from the above unlawful act.
In regard to this, the defendant asserts that C, who is a working partner, listens to the novel that C, who is a husband, is still living separately with his husband, and also proposed C to do a campaign in the park to 3 to 4 times of walking, and he only suppered, and that he did not have a sexual relation.
According to the statement of Gap 3, in the course of the conversation with the plaintiff, Eul first stated that "A was engaged in a campaign with only three to four times in her thickness," as alleged by the defendant, that "C was merely engaged in a campaign with only three to four times in her arm's length, or in drinking his/her car, and was not easy to do so" in accordance with the plaintiff's forced execution, and that "C was only one of three times in her arm's length in accordance with the plaintiff's continued execution." In the end, "A sexual relationship to the extent of three times in her arm's length."