beta
Text
The Defendant’s KRW 20,000,000 and its related thereto to the Plaintiff are 5% per annum from October 23, 2019 to October 14, 2020, and the following.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The plaintiff and C are the legal couple who reported their marriage on December 2, 1992.
B. The Defendant committed an unlawful act, such as committing a sexual intercourse with C from February 2, 2017 to June 2019, with the knowledge that C is a person who is married and is a spouse.
[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. In principle, a third party’s act of infringing on or interfering with a couple’s communal life falling under the essence of marriage and infringing on a spouse’s right as the spouse, thereby causing mental distress to the spouse, constitutes a tort (see Supreme Court Decision 201Meu2997, Nov. 20, 201). An unlawful act committed by a spouse under Article 840 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act is deemed an unlawful act by a spouse under Article 840 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act.
“Along with a broad concept including the adultery, it includes any unlawful act that does not reach the gap between husband and wife, but does not fulfill the duty of good faith (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Meu7, May 24, 198). Whether it is an unlawful act or not must be evaluated in consideration of the degree and situation depending on each specific case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Meu4095, Nov. 28, 2013). (b) According to the foregoing facts, the Defendant maintained an inappropriate relationship with C, even though he/she is aware that he/she is a spouse, from February 2, 2017 to June 2019. The Defendant’s such an act infringed upon the Plaintiff’s husband and wife’s community life or interfere with the maintenance thereof.
Therefore, it is clear in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff suffered a considerable amount of mental suffering. Thus, the defendant is obliged to pay compensation for the mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff in money.
(c)
The defendant did not have an improper relationship with C as it associated with C.
One of the arguments is the fact of recognition.