beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 12,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from January 11, 2018 to August 22, 2018.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On February 6, 1998, the Plaintiff is a legal couple who completed the marriage report with C on February 6, 1998 and has one minor child (the minor child in 2013).
B. In addition, around April 2017, the Defendant, who has both spouse and two children, took a bridge with C, took a trip to Japan from June 18, 2017 to June 20 of the same month, took care of to the her mother, maintained the relationship between giving and receiving text messages, etc. from time to time.
[Ground of recognition] The statements or images of Gap evidence 1 to 8 and Gap evidence 12 (the evidence with a provisional number shall include the number), the inquiry result to the head of Incheon Immigration Office, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Assertion and determination
A. 1) In principle, a third party’s act of infringing on a couple’s communal life falling under the essence of marriage or interfering with the maintenance thereof and infringing on a spouse’s right as a spouse by committing an unlawful act with the spouse, thereby causing mental pain to the spouse, constitutes a tort (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Meu2441, May 29, 2015). According to the above acknowledged facts, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant knowingly committed an unlawful act with knowledge that the spouse is a spouse, and that the Plaintiff’s marital relationship was infringed or interfered with the maintenance thereof by the Defendant’s act, and therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate for mental suffering suffered by the Plaintiff by a tort.
[B] The Defendant’s assertion to the effect that the entry of the evidence No. 1 alone does not interfere with the above fact-finding and judgment, and that there was no intention (no knowledge of the spouse’s existence to C) or the causal relationship was severed (the Defendant’s assertion that the marital relationship between the Plaintiff and C had already been extinguished before he delivered the document No. 3 cannot be accepted).
The scope of the liability for damages by the defendant and C's wrongful act, the extent and duration of the act, and the marriage period between the plaintiff and C.