beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 3,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from January 19, 2018 to November 13, 2018.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a legally married couple who completed the marriage report on December 17, 1988, and has 1 South and North son’s children who are adults.
B. At around 2013, the Defendant: (a) requested the Defendant, working for C, to purchase the goods in D; (b) began with each other; and (c) received money transactions from around 2016; and (d) given and received currencies and letters from time to time.
C. C is a cleaning agent, “A” and “A” to the Defendant, who is the Defendant’s “self,” and the Defendant is the Defendant.
D. B. B. L. B. L. B. L. L. L. L. B. L. L. L.W.
Bed, the Defendant called “I am hye,” etc. on the side of the drinking telecom, and the Defendant would die from her to her.
I will do so.
“........”
[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
(a) A third party who has a liability for damages shall not interfere with a married couple's community life falling under the nature of marriage, such as interfering with a couple's community life by interfering with another person's community life;
In principle, a third party's act of infringing on or interfering with a marital life falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with either side of the married couple and causing mental pain to the spouse by infringing on the rights of the spouse as the spouse.
(see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). “Cheating” in this context refers to a broad concept, including the adultery, which does not reach a common sense but does not faithfully fulfill the duty of mutual assistance of both spouses, includes any unlawful act. Whether it is an unlawful act or not ought to be evaluated in consideration of the degree and circumstances of the specific case.
(See Supreme Court Decision 88Meu7 delivered on May 24, 198, and Supreme Court Decision 92Meu68 delivered on November 10, 1992, etc.). According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is C.