logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.01.27 2015가단109560
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from August 11, 2015 to January 27, 2016.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 3, 1990, the Plaintiff is married with Nonparty C and is a legal couple.

B. The Defendant met C around November 2013, and even though C was aware that C had his/her spouse, conspired C with C, and entered into a sexual relationship several times.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, 7 through 10, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the defendant's act of establishing a sexual relationship with C with C knowing that C has a spouse constitutes an unlawful act against the plaintiff.

Since it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff suffered severe mental pain due to C and the defendant's improper act, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money to the plaintiff as compensation for damages.

B. As to the amount of consolation money within the scope of liability for damages, the amount of consolation money to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff shall be determined as KRW 15,00,00,00 in consideration of the various circumstances revealed in the pleadings of the instant case, including the health group, the period of marriage between the Plaintiff and C, the period and degree of fraudulent act committed by C and the Defendant, the possibility of continuation of fraudulent act in the future

C. In conclusion, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at each rate of KRW 15,00,000 and 15% per annum as stipulated by the Civil Act from August 11, 2015 to January 27, 2016, the date following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff as a result of the tort.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow