beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 10,000,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from October 17, 2017 to February 7, 2018.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On May 12, 201, the Plaintiff completed a marriage report with C on May 12, 201 and has two children.
B. On November 2015, the Defendant became aware of C through NAV carpet, and knew of C’s spouse, the Defendant, even from January 2016 to January 2017, known that C had the spouse, and entered into an inhumane relationship, such as having sexual intercourse between the Plaintiff’s house and the mother.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap's evidence 1 to 9 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. A third party who has a liability for damages shall not interfere with a married life falling under the nature of marriage, such as intervening in a marital life of another person and causing a failure of the marital life;
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 the right as the spouse's right to it and causing mental pain to the spouse shall constitute a tort.
(2) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the presumption of paternity, and thereby exceeding the bounds of the legal doctrine on the presumption of paternity, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the presumption of paternity, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
3. In full view of various circumstances revealed in the arguments in the instant case, such as the scope of damages and the period of marital life and family relationship between the Plaintiff and C, the degree and duration of the non-wheeled relationship between C and the Defendant, and the circumstances after the instant case, it is reasonable to determine consolation money to be paid by the Defendant as KRW 10,00
The defendant shall serve 10,00,000 won for consolation money and a copy of the complaint of this case as sought by the plaintiff after the date of tort.