beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 5,00,000 as well as its annual rate from March 12, 2019 to June 19, 2019 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On November 9, 1995, the Plaintiff has two children as the legal couple who completed the marriage report with C on November 9, 1995.
B. C became aware of the Defendant, who was a workplace rent of 5 to 6 years, and provided D’s message from time to time. Upon becoming aware of such fact, C stored the Defendant’s phone number in his/her cell phone under the name of “E” and continued contact with the Defendant.
다. 피고는 C에게 2018. 11. 30. 하트 모양 이모티콘과 함께 ‘보구싶어용~~~~~♡♡♡’이라는 메시지를 보내거나 2018. 12. 5. ‘오늘 데이트 할까 ’라는 메시지를 보냈다.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, video, purport of whole pleadings
2. The judgment couple bears the duty of good faith to not engage in any unlawful act, and at this time, the term "illegal act" includes all such unlawful act even though it does not reach the marital relationship, and in case where one of the married couple commits a fraudulent act, the married couple shall be liable to compensate for the mental suffering suffered by the spouse due to such unlawful act.
(2) In light of the above legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the presumption of paternity, and thereby exceeding the bounds of the legal principles on the presumption of paternity, and thereby exceeding the bounds of the legal principles on the presumption of paternity, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of judgment. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the presumption of paternity, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. It did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the presumption of paternity, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Meu2441 Decided May 29, 2015, and Supreme Court Decision 2004Da1899 Decided May 13, 2005, etc.). According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant sent inappropriate messages to C, the spouse of the Plaintiff, and the married life of the Plaintiff and C.