beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 10,000,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from October 11, 2016 to February 10, 2017; and (b) the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The plaintiff and C are legally married couple who completed the marriage report on March 29, 2007, and have one child under their chain.
B. The Defendant was the president of “D”, and C had worked as the head of the above Council member’s counseling office from March 2013. Since early 2016, upon being aware that C had a spouse, the Defendant: (a) committed unlawful acts, such as using her name in the above Council member or the defendant’s house, etc.; (b) having sexual intercourse around June 11, 2016, and (c) had refused to do so.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, 3, and 4 (including paper numbers), Gap evidence 2-1 to 5 video, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above recognition facts, since the defendant committed an unlawful act with the plaintiff's spouse C, thereby infringing the plaintiff's communal living life or hindering the maintenance thereof, the defendant is liable to compensate for mental damage suffered by the plaintiff.
Furthermore, with respect to the amount of consolation money that the defendant is liable for, the amount of consolation money that the defendant is liable for shall be determined as 10 million won in consideration of various circumstances shown in the arguments of this case, such as health group, the content, degree and period of the misconduct of the defendant and C, the marriage period and family relationship of the plaintiff and C, and the influence of the defendant's improper act on the
Therefore, as the Plaintiff seeks, the Defendant is obligated to pay as consolation money 10 million won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from October 11, 2016 to February 10, 2017, the date following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, which is the day following the delivery date of the Plaintiff’s complaint, until February 10, 2017, which is reasonable in dispute as to the existence and scope of the Defendant’s performance obligation.
3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition.