beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 25,00,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from July 10, 2018 to June 12, 2019, and the following.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The plaintiff is a legal couple who has completed a marriage report with C.
B. Around 2003, the Defendant, upon becoming a female china company operated by C, had a sex relationship with C despite being aware that C is her father-Nam, and maintained an illegal relationship for at least 15 years, such as repeated pregnancy and miscarriage nine times thereafter.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Defendant continued to commit an unlawful act for at least 15 years with C and C, and as C was unable to continue to maintain the relationship with the Defendant, the Defendant actively informed the Plaintiff on May 15, 2018 that he was a female, and thereafter requested money to the Plaintiff and his family members, so the Defendant is liable to pay consolation money with compensation for mental damage.
B. The Defendant is a victim of rape from Defendant C, and the child is divorced from the Plaintiff when he/she is an adult, and continues to engage in pregnancy and miscarriage while repeating the relationship with the Plaintiff. Since 2012, C left the Plaintiff’s house to make a claim against C when he/she temporarily ceased to provide monetary support. He/she did not claim to the Plaintiff and exchange several letters with C, and the relationship between the Plaintiff and C did not reach the failure, and thus, the Defendant is not liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages.
3. Determination
A. A third party shall not interfere with a married couple’s communal living falling under the essence of marriage by intervening in a married couple’s communal living by causing failure of a married couple’s communal living. A third party’s act of infringing on or interfering with a married couple’s communal living falling under the essence of marriage and infringing on a spouse’s right as the spouse, in principle, constitutes tort (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do128, Nov. 20, 2014).