Claim for damages for an affair: court rejects part of the claimed period and orders payment of KRW 30,000,100 in full

Case overview

The plaintiff, who remained married to their spouse, sought damages for emotional distress from the spouse’s affair partner. The plaintiff alleged that the spouse had been having an affair with the defendant since around 2017. The judgment states that, after becoming acquainted with the defendant around 2019, the spouse continued meeting with the defendant while providing financial support, including living expenses and expensive items. The plaintiff expressed a wish not to divorce, hoping that the spouse would regret the wrongdoing and return to the family.

In considering the outcome, it is important to note not only that the claim was granted, but also that the court did not accept the plaintiff’s alleged start date as stated. The court assessed the defendant’s liability and the amount of damages based on the facts and evidence it found established. The judgment identifies Attorney Ahn Hyun-hee as counsel for the defendant, but this material does not establish which party the law office represented as its client. This review therefore focuses on the arguments and findings disclosed in the judgment.

Issues

• The defendant’s liability for damages: The issue was whether the defendant, knowing that the spouse was married, had an affair that interfered with the marital relationship and caused emotional distress to the spouse. The court considered whether the defendant knew of the marriage while engaging in the affair.
• When the affair began: The issue was whether specific evidence supported the plaintiff’s allegation that the affair with the defendant began around 2017. Because the start date could be relevant to the scope of liability and the assessment of damages, the period accepted by the court must be distinguished from the period it did not accept.
• The amount of damages: The issue was what amount of compensation was appropriate in light of the established period and circumstances of the affair, the marriage and family relationships, the parties’ financial circumstances, and other circumstances shown in the case.

Counsel’s role

The judgment identifies Attorney Ahn Hyun-hee as counsel for the defendant. It does not separately describe the defendant’s specific litigation arguments or counsel’s response. It is therefore not possible to state that any particular argument was made, or that particular evidence was submitted to obtain the result.

• As to the timing of the affair: The judgment records that the plaintiff alleged an affair beginning around 2017, but the court found no specific evidence supporting that allegation. The court considered it difficult to conclude that the defendant was the other party to an affair at that time. This review does not add any arguments or evidence-submission details for the defendant that are not stated in the document.
• As to liability and damages: The court found that the defendant had an affair knowing that the spouse was married, and assessed damages after considering various circumstances. This summarizes the court’s findings as stated in the judgment; it does not mean that the law office submitted particular evidence or secured a particular outcome.

The court’s decision

• Liability for damages: The court stated that a third party’s interference with and infringement of the marital relationship, causing emotional distress to a spouse, generally constitutes a tort. It found that the defendant had engaged in a long-term affair knowing that the spouse was married and was therefore liable for damages. The judgment’s central reasoning was that the defendant had “interfered with the marital relationship,” and must compensate for the resulting emotional harm.
• The allegation that the affair began around 2017: The court found no specific evidence supporting that date. In view of the spouse’s financial means and usual conduct, it could not rule out the possibility that the spouse had an affair with another woman at that time, and it could not conclude that the defendant was that person. The court therefore found that the affair began around 2019, the date admitted by the defendant. Thus, the affair itself was established, but the full start period alleged by the plaintiff was not accepted.
• The amount of damages: The court considered the length of the marriage and the family relationships, the long-term affair beginning around 2019, indications that the defendant actively sought financial support including expensive items, and the parties’ financial circumstances. It set damages at KRW 30,000,100. The court stated that this amount was damages for the joint tort committed by the spouse and the defendant as a whole.

Outcome

The court granted the plaintiff’s claim in full and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff KRW 30,000,100 in damages. The judgment also specifies interest for delay at an annual rate of 12%, calculated from the day after service of a copy of the complaint until payment in full, and orders the defendant to bear the litigation costs. The damages award was declared provisionally enforceable.

However, granting the claim in full does not mean that every fact alleged by the plaintiff was accepted as stated. The court rejected for lack of evidence the allegation that the defendant’s affair with the spouse began around 2017, and assessed liability and damages based on conduct beginning around 2019. The judgment also states that the damages amount covers the joint tort of the spouse and the defendant as a whole. The materials provided do not establish whether the judgment became final.

If you are in a similar situation

• Consider the alleged time periods separately. If there is a dispute about when an affair began, this case illustrates that simply alleging a longer period does not establish it. The court assessed separately the allegation concerning around 2017 and the facts from around 2019 admitted by the defendant.
• Distinguish liability from the amount of damages. In this case, liability for damages arising from the affair was established, while the marital relationship, duration of the affair, indications of financial support, and financial circumstances were considered in setting the amount. Whether liability exists and how the amount is determined are related but distinct questions.
• Check precisely what the judgment says. The judgment expressly states that the damages award covers the joint tort as a whole. It is also important not to present arguments, evidence submissions, or the finality of the judgment that are not stated in the judgment as established facts.

Frequently asked questions

Q. If an affair is found to have occurred, is the start date alleged by the plaintiff also accepted in full?

A. No. In this case, the court considered the existence of the affair separately from when it began. It found an affair from around 2019, but rejected the allegation that the defendant had been involved from around 2017 because specific supporting evidence was lacking.

Q. If a claim is granted in full, has the judgment become final?

A. Whether a claim is granted and whether a judgment has become final are separate matters. The operative part of this judgment states the payment obligation and that it is provisionally enforceable, but the judgment provided does not establish whether there was a later challenge or whether the judgment became final. In an actual case, the terms of the judgment should be distinguished from subsequent proceedings.

Attorney Ahn Hyun-hee is identified as counsel for the defendant. This review does not infer which party the law office represented as its client from the judgment alone; it focuses on the procedure and outcome that can be confirmed. This is the result in an individual case and does not guarantee the same result in similar cases. Facts such as locations and dates have been generalized to protect the parties.