beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from June 7, 2017 to August 16, 2017.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, the plaintiff filed a report of marriage with Eul on April 7, 2009. However, the defendant who worked in the same workplace as the above Eul from October 2016 to his/her spouse even though he/she is aware that the above C had his/her spouse, can be recognized as having performed acts such as communicating the above C on his/her private basis and exchanging the expressions among the plaintiffs, and there is no reflective evidence.
2. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. A third party shall not interfere with a couple’s community life falling under the essence of marriage by intervening in a couple’s community life of another person and causing failure of a couple’s community life. A third party’s act of infringing upon or interfering with a couple’s community life falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with one of the married couple, and infringing on a spouse’s right as a spouse, thereby causing mental distress to the spouse, constitutes tort in principle (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). In this case, “unlawful act” refers to a broad concept that includes adultery and includes adultery, but does not reach the adultery, any unlawful act that does not comply with the marital duty of the married couple, and whether it is an unlawful act shall be evaluated in consideration of the degree and circumstances depending on the specific case.
(See Supreme Court Decision 88Meu7 delivered on May 24, 198, and Supreme Court Decision 92Meu68 delivered on November 10, 1992, etc.) B.
Examining the above facts in light of the above legal principles, the defendant was aware that C is a spouse, and continuously committed an unlawful act with his/her female for a considerable period of time, and the defendant's such an act infringed upon the plaintiff's marital relationship or interfered with his/her maintenance. Thus, the defendant has a duty to raise mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff in money
3. The defendant and C's improper act within the scope of liability for damages.