beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 15,00,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from October 15, 2016 to May 2, 2017.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff and C (C, the United States of nationality, hereinafter referred to as “C”) completed the marriage report on September 21, 2004.
B. From August 2012, the Defendant knew that C was a father-son, and was accommodated with C in the hotel in Seoul and Daegu, while having been accommodated in the same hotel in Seoul and Daegu. On June 2013, the Defendant was traveling to Guam.
C. On January 15, 2015, the Plaintiff and C reported divorce.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's entries, 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 14, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments
2. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. 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 a spouse's right as the spouse, thereby causing mental pain to the spouse, constitutes a tort.
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014).B.
According to the facts of recognition under Paragraph (1), the plaintiff is obvious in light of the empirical rule that he/she suffered considerable mental suffering due to the infringement of marital life due to an unlawful act between the defendant and C, and therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay compensation for mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff in money.
C. The defendant asserts that since the marital relationship between the plaintiff and C has already been settled to a considerable extent before the defendant's act, the plaintiff's act does not lead to the failure of the plaintiff's marital relationship.
However, each statement of Eul Nos. 1 through 4 alone lacks evidence to prove the above argument of the defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove it.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.
3. Scope of liability for damages
A. In full view of the marriage period between the Plaintiff and C, the contents and duration of the Defendant’s misconduct, and other circumstances shown in the argument of this case, it is reasonable to determine the amount of consolation money at KRW 15 million.
Therefore, the defendant.