beta
Text
1. The defendant jointly with C (D) and jointly with D 20,000,000 won to the plaintiff, and as to this, from August 13, 2020 to February 17, 2021.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff and C are married couple on November 25, 2013.
B. In November 2019, the Defendant came to know of C as a guest while working in a singing room, and developed into a relationship beginning with the preparation of a sexual intercourse with the knowledge that he/she is his/her spouse, even though he/she was his/her spouse.
(c)
On December 15, 2019, the Plaintiff reported the Kakao Stockholm message sent and received by the Defendant and C from the mobile phone of C around December 15, 2019, and became aware of his misconduct.
Defendant and C knew that they were discovered to the Plaintiff, the Defendant and C followed her to the beginning of January 2020.
[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-8 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. This case’s determination of the governing law is a claim for damages caused by tort against the Defendant, the Russia, the Republic of Korea, which is the part of the Republic of Korea, in accordance with Article 32 of the International Judicial Law, the law of the Republic of Korea, the governing law.
3. Determination
A. In principle, a third party who suffered liability for damages by committing an unlawful act with a husband and wife, thereby infringing on a couple’s common life or interfering with the maintenance thereof and infringing on the spouse’s right as the spouse (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da1899, May 13, 2005, etc.). According to the above findings of recognition, the defendant knowingly committed an unlawful act with C with knowledge of the fact that he/she is a spouse, and thereby infringed a couple’s common life between the plaintiff and C, and thus, the defendant is liable to jointly act with C. Thus, the defendant is liable for mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff (it cannot be determined by the court on the basis of the fact that the parties did not assert any claim by the court, but the court is the substantive cause of claim that appears to be identical to the objective substance of the claim.