beta
Text
The defendant shall pay 25,00,000 won to the plaintiff and 5% per annum from August 1, 2018 to November 24, 2020, and the following day.
Reasons
1. According to the purport of Gap’s establishment of liability for damages and the entire arguments, the Plaintiff and C have married on March 28, 2001 and divorced on February 28, 2003, but they were married on May 20, 201, and the Defendant, even though having knowledge of the fact that C is married, can recognize the fact that C had sexual intercourse only several times with C.
According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant’s wrongful act committed with C constitutes a tort that infringes upon, or interferes with, the Plaintiff’s spouse’s right as the Plaintiff’s spouse (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). It is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the Plaintiff suffered heavy mental pain.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money for mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff.
2. As to the scope of liability for damages, the amount of consolation money that the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff is KRW 25,00,000, considering all the circumstances revealed in the pleadings of the instant case, including the following: (a) health care provider; (b) the background and period of the Defendant’s delivery of C; (c) the degree of misconduct committed by the Defendant and C; (d) the marriage period and the degree of failure to marry; and (e) the circumstances after the occurrence of a fraudulent act; and (e) the fact that the Defendant appears to have given
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from August 1, 2018 to November 24, 2020, which is the date of the instant judgment, and 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment, which is deemed reasonable for the Defendant to resist the existence or scope of its obligation to perform.
3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is without merit.