beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is the same as the statement on the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of
2. Determination
A. The act that a third party who is liable for damages causes mental distress to the spouse by infringing on or interfering with the common life of the married couple falling under the essence of marriage and infringing on the rights of the spouse as the spouse by committing an unlawful act with the spouse of the married couple constitutes a tort in principle.
(2) In order to establish a third party’s tort, one spouse’s wrongful act should be recognized first on the premise of the establishment of such third party’s tort. “Unlawful act” of one spouse is a broad concept including any unlawful act that is deemed not to be faithful to the husband’s duty of mutual assistance even if it does not reach the common sense, and whether it constitutes an unlawful act ought to be determined by considering the degree and situation of each specific case.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Meu4095, Nov. 28, 2013). According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant and C accommodation in a penture where the couple’s emotional duty was also strengthened. Such acts of C are not faithful to the husband’s emotional duty, and it is clear in light of the empirical rule that the Plaintiff suffered considerable mental pain.
Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay back the mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff due to such unlawful act in money.
B. As to the amount of consolation money that the Defendant is liable to compensate to the Plaintiff, the health team, the marriage period and family relationship between the Plaintiff and C, the content, degree and duration of the unlawful act committed by the Defendant and C, and the Plaintiff and C did not reach a divorce, and the marriage continues to exist.