beta
Text
1. The Defendant amounting to KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from November 11, 2015 to September 26, 2017.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The plaintiff is a legally married couple who completed the marriage report with C on January 29, 192.
B. From July 1, 2015 to July 22, 2015, the Defendant sent telephone conversations with C or sent text messages several times a day to July 22, 2015, and on September 5, 2015, the Defendant met C and entered the telecom.
C. On September 18, 2015, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit, and the Defendant continued to contact with C by telephone conversations with C or sending text messages, etc., even thereafter until December 2015.
【Facts 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of Gap’s 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 (if there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, the entries and images including the number and the purport
2. Determination
A. A husband and wife is liable to live together and support each other and cooperate (Article 826 of the Civil Act). Husband and wife is liable to cooperate and protect each other as a community combining mental, physical, and economicly combined with each other so as to maintain marriage as a common life of both spouses, and has the right to comprehensively cooperate therewith. As a matter of such duty to live together or maintain common life of both spouses, a husband and wife bears the sexual duty that should not engage in any unlawful act. If either husband and wife commits an unlawful act, the other husband and wife is liable to compensate for mental distress inflicted upon the spouse. Meanwhile, a third party shall not interfere with a couple’s common life falling under the essence of marriage by interfering with a couple’s common life by interfering with a husband and wife’s common life of a third party. The third party’s act of infringing on or interfering with a couple’s common life falling under the essence of marriage and infringing on the spouse’s rights as the spouse, in principle, constitutes a tort (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Da52988, May 29, 2015).