beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 3,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from November 3, 2015 to November 24, 2016, and the following.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On February 17, 1986, the Plaintiff married with C on February 17, 1986, and has children D and E under his/her supervision.
B. C sent a warning around B, 2005.
C. At present, the Plaintiff and C maintain a matrimonial relationship as they are.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment thereon
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) C committed an unlawful act with the Defendant around spring of 2005. 2) C went out to have an internal relationship with the Defendant around A around 2005.
3) As a result, the marriage between the Plaintiff and C was broken down. (B) Unless there are special circumstances, such as: (a) in a case where a third party commits an unlawful act with the spouse, and the marriage was broken down due to such unlawful act, and where the third party intentionally or negligently committed the act, it shall be interpreted that the third party has a duty to avoid mental suffering suffered by the other spouse, as it constitutes an unlawful act that infringes upon the other spouse’s rights as the husband or wife of the other spouse or constitutes a tort, regardless of whether the relationship between the two parties was broken down at the time of the wrongful act, or whether the relationship was due to natural distress or not.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da1899 Decided May 13, 2005). In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the evidence Nos. 2004Da1899 Decided May 13, 2005, C may be recognized as having committed an unlawful act with the Defendant from around A, 2005 to August 2, 2015, and therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for mental suffering due to the said unlawful act.
C. Although the Defendant asserts that the marital failure due to the above wrongful act is not caused by C’s wrongful act in a situation where the marital relationship with the Plaintiff and C has already been extinguished, it is insufficient to recognize the failure only by the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 and 5.