logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2020.11.19 2019가단265399
손해배상(기)
Text

The defendant's KRW 20,000,000 for the plaintiff and 5% per annum from March 24, 2020 to November 19, 2020 for the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a legal couple who reported marriage on November 6, 199 with C and two children.

B. From June 2019, the Defendant, knowing that C is a spouse, referred C as “self,” and boomed with “self,” and boomed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements or images, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

(a) A third party who has a liability for damages shall not interfere with a married couple's community life falling under the nature of marriage, such as interfering with a couple's community life by interfering with another person'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 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). “Cheating” in this context refers to a broad concept, including the adultery, which does not reach the common sense but does not reach the common sense, and includes any unlawful act that is not faithful to the husband’s duty of mutual assistance. Whether it is an unlawful act or not should be assessed in consideration of the degree and circumstances depending on the specific case.

(See Supreme Court Decision 88Meu7 delivered on May 24, 198, and 92Meu68 delivered on November 10, 1992, etc.). According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant, even though being aware that C is a spouse, committed an unlawful act, thereby infringing on or interfering with the maintenance of marital life falling under the essence of marriage, thereby infringing on the rights of the plaintiff as the spouse of the married couple, and causing mental distress to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant is obliged to compensate for mental damage suffered by the plaintiff.

As to this, the defendant has not yet reached a marital relationship with the plaintiff C before it associates with C.

arrow