beta
Text
The defendant's KRW 10,00,000 and its relation to the plaintiff shall be 5% per annum from May 17, 2020 to January 14, 2021.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff and C are legally married couple who completed the marriage report on September 26, 2014.
B. While the Defendant was working as a guest at a entertainment establishment, the Defendant met C, who was a guest on November 2016, and committed unlawful acts, such as having sexual intercourses only with an officetel, Moel, etc. residing by the Defendant from around that time to June 2017.
[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1, 3, 6, 10, and 17, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
(a) A third party shall not interfere with a married couple’s communal life falling under the essence of marriage, such as where a couple’s communal life is involved in another person’s communal life, thereby causing a failure of the couple’s communal life;
In principle, the third party's act of infringing on or interfering with the common life of the married couple falling under the essence of marriage and infringing on the spouse's right as the spouse, thereby causing mental pain to the spouse, which constitutes a tort (see Supreme Court Decision 201Meu297, Nov. 20, 2014). 2) According to the purport of arguments in the evidence Nos. 6, 13, 16, and 17, the defendant can be recognized as having committed an unlawful act with C even though he/she is a spouse, according to the whole purport of arguments in the evidence Nos. 6, 13, 16, and 17, the defendant's act constitutes a tort (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Meu297, Nov. 20, 2014).
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff money for mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff due to the above act of the defendant.
3) The Defendant merely believed C to be a spouse and a divorce lawsuit, and believed C to have been in trust and several times, and there is no evidence that C and the Defendant had sexual intercourse, and thus, did not constitute a tort.
The argument is asserted.
However, even according to the above argument by the defendant, the defendant was aware that C is in a divorce lawsuit with the plaintiff.