beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 10,000,000 for the Plaintiff and the following: 5% per annum from February 26, 2019 to March 18, 2020;
Reasons
1. A third party of a related legal doctrine shall not interfere with a married couple’s community life falling under the essence of marriage, such as interfering with a couple’s community life by causing a failure of a married couple’s community life;
In principle, a third party's act of infringing on or interfering with a marital life falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with either side of the married couple and causing mental pain to the spouse by infringing on the rights of the spouse as the spouse.
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997). Meanwhile, “illegal conduct by a spouse” under Article 840 Subparag. 1 of the Civil Act is a wider concept including adultery, which does not reach the common sense, but does not reach the common sense, and includes any unlawful conduct that is not faithful to the husband’s duty of good faith, and whether it is an unlawful conduct or not should
(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Meu4095 Decided November 28, 2013, etc.). 2. Determination
A. Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions, images, and arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 through 18, the Plaintiff was the spouse of C who completed the marriage report with C on May 1, 2015. The Defendant was the employee of D Accounting Corporation from Jan. 1, 2018 to Nov. 1, 2018, dispatched to the Plaintiff and C for about ten (10) months from the date of dispatch. The Defendant committed an improper act by entering into an inappropriate relationship, including sexual relations, with C while being aware that C and the Plaintiff had a marital relationship during the period of secondment.
According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant violated or interfered with the maintenance of the common life of the plaintiff and C, and the fact that the plaintiff suffered mental suffering is sufficiently ratified in light of the empirical rule. The defendant's improper act constitutes tort under the Civil Act.
Therefore, the defendant suffered from the plaintiff.