logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.10.17 2017가단213493
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 20,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from December 4, 2016 to October 17, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 24, 2012, the Plaintiff is a legal spouse who has completed a marriage report with Nonparty C (hereinafter “Nonindicted Party”) and one other among them.

B. From April 2016, the Defendant commenced the teaching system, such as having sexual intercourse with the Nonparty who was a superior of the same workplace.

C. Around June 24, 2016, the Plaintiff discovered that he/she was committing an unlawful act with the Defendant by witnessing his/her message and photograph from the Nonparty’s mobile phone. On the 26th of the same month, the Plaintiff demanded the Nonparty to arrange the relationship with the Nonparty.

On June 28, 2016, the non-party requested the plaintiff to divorce and died together with the plaintiff.

E. On June 6, 2017, the Defendant, along with the Nonparty, was found to have been aware of the Plaintiff when the Nonparty was her mother.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, 7, and 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The act of infringing on or interfering with the common life of the married couple falling under the essence of marriage and of infringing on the rights of the spouse as the spouse and causing mental suffering to the spouse, in principle, constitutes tort.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant is obliged to pay consolation money due to the pertinent tort to the Plaintiff on November 20, 2014 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). In light of the above legal principles, according to the health team and the above acknowledged facts, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant committed an unlawful act with the Nonparty, who is the spouse of the Plaintiff, thereby endangering the community life between the Plaintiff

B. We examine the scope of liability for damages and the amount of consolation money, and each of the evidence mentioned above.

arrow