(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2019.05.16 2018가단239786

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2019.05.16 2018가단239786

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from December 6, 2018 to May 16, 2019 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 11, the plaintiff (the plaintiff 1968 plaintiff) is the wife non-party C (the 1974 plaintiff hereinafter "the 1974 plaintiff ") and the legal couple who completed the marriage report, and has two children of high school students and elementary school students under the chain. The defendant (the 1972 plaintiff) even though he was aware that the non-party was a married person, it can be recognized that he maintained an inappropriate relationship, such as having the non-party and the diving at the defendant's home, between July 2018 and August 201.

After becoming aware of the fact, the plaintiff applied for confirmation of the intention of divorce and the date of confirmation of the intention is being determined.

2. Determination

(a) A third party shall not interfere with a married couple's communal living which corresponds to the nature of the marriage, such as causing a failure of a married couple's communal living, by intervening in a marital life of another person;

In principle, a third party’s act of infringing on or impeding the maintenance of a marital life falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with the spouse, and infringing on the spouse’s right as the spouse, thereby causing emotional distress to the spouse constitutes a tort (see Supreme Court Decisions 2013Meu2441, May 29, 2015; 2013Meu2441, May 29, 2015). Meanwhile, “illegal act” under Article 840 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act should be understood as a wider concept including any unlawful act that is deemed not faithful to the marital duty even if it does not reach common sense.

As seen earlier, it appears that there was sexual intercourse between the defendant and the non-party, and the non-party Gap 2's confirmation document stated that the non-party committed an act of incompetence with the defendant at the defendant's office, and the records of Gap 5 also read that the non-party in the currency with the defendant "if the non-party does not have a diversity at the Ore House, it is the same that the non-party does not have a diversity

참조조문

-민법 제840조 제1호

참조판례

-대법원 2015. 5. 29. 선고 2013므2441 판결

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2019.11.07 2019가단219192

-울산지방법원 2018.01.17 2016가단69521

-대전지방법원 2021.02.24 2020가단109141

-서울북부지방법원 2019.05.30 2018가단117910

-울산지방법원 2018.11.14 2018가단10981