Open Decision Ledger · Family & inheritance law
Third-party adultery, divorce-based mental-distress damages and its limitation period
Supreme Court, Jan. 29, 2026, 2025Meu10716 (judgment)
Case name: 이혼등
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a spouse sues the third party with whom the other spouse committed adultery, is the claim for damages for mental distress resting on the collapse of the marriage a divorce-based claim for damages for mental distress, a family case of the category listed in Article 2(1)(i)(c) of the Family Litigation Act, and from when does the three-year limitation period of Article 766(1) of the Civil Act begin to run against it?
Holding
It is such a claim. Where one spouse's adultery brings the marriage to the point of collapse and ends in divorce, the course of events from the individual blameful act to the final divorce is understood as a single tort, and the spouse's mental pain is assessed and fixed at the time of the final divorce. The spouse is therefore taken to have known the loss and the injurer when the marriage was dissolved, and three years run only from that point; a claim resting on that collapse is heard as a family case, distinct from an ordinary civil claim for an individual act of adultery.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
이혼의 원인이 되는 개별적 유책행위의 발생으로부터 최종적 이혼에 이르기까지 일련의 경과가 전체로서 불법행위로 파악되어 최종적 이혼 시점에서 확정·평가되며, 이 경우 피해자인 상대방 배우자는 혼인이 해소된 때에 그 손해 및 가해자를 알았다고 봄이 상당하므로, 그때부터 3년이 경과하여야 민법 제766조 제1항에서 정한 단기소멸시효가 완성된다.
Unofficial English translation
A series of developments from the occurrence of the individual culpable act that grounds the divorce through to the final divorce are, in their entirety, understood as a tort and are determined and assessed at the time of the final divorce, and in such a case it is reasonable to regard the victimized spouse as having learned of the damage and the tortfeasor at the time the marriage was dissolved; accordingly, the short-term extinctive prescription under Article 766, paragraph (1) of the Civil Act is completed only after three years have elapsed from that time.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 청주지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Cheongju District Court.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
한편 이혼을 원인으로 하는 위자료청구에 해당하는지 여부는 구체적 사안에서 당사자의 의사, 당사자가 혼인관계를 유지하고 있는지, 협의 이혼의 성립 여부 또는 부부 일방이 재판상 이혼을 청구하였는지, 재판상 이혼청구 소송의 경과 등을 종합적으로 판단하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
On the other hand, whether a claim constitutes a claim for consolation money on the ground of divorce must be determined comprehensively in the specific case, taking into account the parties' intentions, whether the parties are maintaining the marital relationship, whether a divorce by agreement has been established or one spouse has filed for a judicial divorce, the course of the judicial divorce proceedings, and the like.
Factors
- 혼인의 본질에 해당하는 부부공동생활을 침해하거나 그 유지를 방해하고 그에 대한 배우자로서의 권리를 침해하여 배우자에게 정신적 고통을 가하는 행위도 원칙적으로 불법행위를 구성한다.
- 부부의 일방과 제3자가 부담하는 불법행위책임은 공동불법행위책임으로서 부진정연대채무 관계에 있다.
- 이혼의 원인이 되는 개별적 유책행위의 발생으로부터 최종적 이혼에 이르기까지 일련의 경과가 전체로서 불법행위로 파악되어
- 피해자인 상대방 배우자는 혼인이 해소된 때에 그 손해 및 가해자를 알았다고 봄이 상당하므로
- 당사자의 의사, 당사자가 혼인관계를 유지하고 있는지, 협의 이혼의 성립 여부 또는 부부 일방이 재판상 이혼을 청구하였는지, 재판상 이혼청구 소송의 경과 등을 종합적으로 판단하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
• An act that infringes upon the spouses' marital life, which constitutes the essence of marriage, or interferes with its maintenance, infringes upon the rights of the spouse in relation thereto, and inflicts mental anguish on the spouse, also constitutes, in principle, a tort.
• The tort liability borne by one spouse and the third party stands in a relationship of improper joint and several liability as joint tortfeasors.
• A series of developments from the occurrence of the individual culpable act that grounds the divorce through to the final divorce are, in their entirety, understood as a tort and
• it is reasonable to regard the victimized spouse as having learned of the damage and the tortfeasor at the time the marriage was dissolved; accordingly,
• a comprehensive determination must be made of the parties' intentions, whether the parties are maintaining the marital relationship, whether a divorce by agreement has been established or one spouse has filed for a judicial divorce, the course of the judicial divorce proceedings, and the like.
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2014. 11. 20. 선고 2011므2997 전원합의체 판결(공2014하, 2361), 대법원 2015. 5. 29. 선고 2013므2441 판결(공2015하, 875)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court en banc judgment 2011Meu2997 decided November 20, 2014 (Gong 2014 Ha, 2361); Supreme Court Decision 2013Meu2441 decided May 29, 2015 (Gong 2015 Ha, 875)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2014. 11. 20. 선고 2011므2997 전원합의체 판결(공2014하, 2361), 대법원 2015. 5. 29. 선고 2013므2441 판결(공2015하, 875) / [2] 대법원 1993. 5. 27. 선고 92므143 판결(공1993하, 1882), 대법원 2015. 6. 24. 선고 2013므3963, 3970 판결, 대법원 2024. 10. 25. 선고 2024므11526, 11533 판결(공2024하, 1876) / [3] 대법원 2021. 11. 25. 선고 2021다253154, 253161 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where the circumstances the Court listed point in different directions, such as a spouse's stated intent favouring a divorce-based claim while the marriage has not been dissolved, how should they be weighed against one another?
A later decision applying the circumstances the Court listed, on a record in which the divorce was made by mediation during the proceedings, would show how the two claims are separated in practice. Any amendment to Article 2 of the Family Litigation Act or to Article 766(1) of the Civil Act would also require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 6 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Circumstances weighed” vs Independent “Elements stated”
The primary reading presents the approach as holistic weighing of several circumstances, while the independent reading presents it as a requirements test for classification; the opinion lists factors without a fixed order, so both emphases fit.
상대방 배우자의 부부 일방 또는 제3자에 대한 이혼을 원인으로 하는 위자료청구는 가사소송법 제2조 제1항 제1호 (다)목 2)에서 정한 다류 가사소송사건에 해당한다.Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where the circumstances the Court listed point in different directions, such as a spouse's stated intent favouring a divorce-based claim while the marriage has not been dissolved, how should they be weighed against one another?” vs Independent “How should damages already awarded for individual acts of infidelity be accounted for in a later divorce-based damages award?”
The primary reading asks how conflicting circumstances should be weighed against each other. The independent reading asks how damages already awarded for individual infidelity should be credited in a later divorce award.
이혼의 원인이 되는 개별적 유책행위의 발생으로부터 최종적 이혼에 이르기까지 일련의 경과가 전체로서 불법행위로 파악되어 최종적 이혼 시점에서 확정·평가되며, 이 경우 피해자인 상대방 배우자는 혼인이 해소된 때에 그 손해 및 가해자를 알았다고 봄이 상당하므로, 그때부터 3년이 경과하여야 민법 제766조 제1항에서 정한 단기소멸시효가 완성된다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Cheongju District Court, in its judgment of 10 April 2025 (2024Reu50409), held that where a third party commits adultery with one spouse and infringes the married life, the injured spouse cannot hold, alongside a right to damages based on the tort of the adultery itself, a separate right to damages based on the collapse of the marriage. It characterised the claim against the defendant as one based on the tort of her adultery alone, and held that the plaintiff knew the loss and the injurer when she learned of the adultery in about 2017, so that the claim had already been extinguished by the three-year limitation period before the action was filed on 13 October 2022.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff had made clear, in the complaint and in her written submissions, that the claim rested on the collapse of the marriage brought about by the adultery of the defendant and the co-defendant, which is a family case of the category listed in Article 2(1)(i)(c) of the Family Litigation Act and a right recognised separately from a claim on an individual act of adultery. The court below should have accepted that characterisation on the plaintiff's application, decided the merits, including causation between the adultery and the collapse, and, if it accepted the plaintiff's cause-of-action claim, taken the date the marriage was dissolved as the start of the limitation period. Because it premised the opposite and decided a matter the plaintiff had not applied for, it misapprehended the nature of that claim right and its limitation period and breached the principle of disposition under Article 203 of the Civil Procedure Act; the appeal succeeded, and the judgment was reversed and remanded on the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A claim that keeps the marriage intact and seeks damages only for an individual act of adultery during the married life, which belongs to ordinary civil litigation and is not subject to this accrual point.
- A case in which the plaintiff did not apply to have the claim treated as alimony based on divorce, since the court below was required to act on the application made.
- A case in which the marriage has not been dissolved at all, so that the moment the Court identified as the accrual point has not yet arrived.
Record verification notes
Read the pleadings to see whether the claim was framed as alimony for the collapse of the marriage or as damages for an individual act, and whether the plaintiff asked the court below for the former characterisation, since the Supreme Court rested its correction on that application. Then fix the date the marriage was dissolved, here 20 July 2023 by mediation between the plaintiff and the co-defendant, and check whether an ordinary civil claim for the individual acts was pleaded alongside, as the two claims are recognised separately.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 제3자가 부부의 일방과 부정행위를 함으로써 혼인의 본질에 해당하는 부부공동생활을 침해하거나 그 유지를 방해하고 그에 대한 배우자로서의 권리를 침해하여 배우자에게 정신적 고통을 가하는 행위가 불법행위를 구성하는지 여부(원칙적 적극) 및 부부의 일방과 제3자가 부담하는 불법행위책임은 공동불법행위책임으로서 부진정연대채무 관계에 있는지 여부(적극) [2] 부부 일방의 유책·불법한 행위에 의하여 혼인관계가 파탄상태에 이르러 이혼하게 된 경우, 이혼을 원인으로 하는 위자료청구권의 손해가 확정·평가되는 시점(=최종적 이혼 시) 및 그 단기소멸시효의 기산점(=혼인 해소 시) [3] 부부의 일방이 제3자와 부정행위를 한 경우, 상대방 배우자의 부부 일방 또는 제3자에 대한 이혼을 원인으로 하는 위자료청구가 가사소송법 제2조 제1항 제1호 (다)목 2)에서 정한 다류 가사소송사건인지 여부(적극) / 이혼과 무관하게 부부공동생활 중 발생한 개별적 부정행위를 불법행위로 파악하여 그로 인하여 입게 된 정신적 고통을 위자하기 위한 손해배상청구는 통상의 민사사건인지 여부(적극) / 이혼을 원인으로 하는 위자료청구에 해당하는지 판단하는 기준
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether an act whereby a third party commits an immoral act (an act of adultery) with one spouse, thereby infringing upon the spouses' marital life, which constitutes the essence of marriage, or interfering with its maintenance, infringing upon the other spouse's rights as a spouse in relation thereto, and inflicting mental anguish on the spouse, constitutes a tort (principally affirmative), and whether the tort liability borne by one spouse and the third party stands in a relationship of improper joint and several liability as joint tortfeasors (affirmative) [2] Where the marital relationship has reached a state of breakdown and a divorce takes place due to the culpable and unlawful act of one spouse, the point in time at which the damage under a claim for consolation money on the ground of divorce is determined and assessed (= the time of the final divorce) and the starting point of the short-term extinctive prescription therefor (= the time of dissolution of the marriage) [3] Where one spouse has committed an immoral act with a third party, whether a claim for consolation money on the ground of divorce brought by the other spouse against one spouse or the third party constitutes a Da-type family litigation case as prescribed in Article 2, paragraph (1), subparagraph 1, item (c) 2) of the Family Litigation Act (affirmative) / Whether a claim for damages seeking to console the mental anguish suffered as a result of an individual immoral act committed during the marital life, understood as a tort irrespective of the divorce, constitutes an ordinary civil case (affirmative) / The criteria for determining whether a claim falls under a claim for consolation money on the ground of divorce
Summary of the holding
[1] 부부의 일방이 부정행위를 한 경우에 부부의 일방은 그로 인하여 배우자가 입은 정신적 고통에 대하여 불법행위에 의한 손해배상의무를 진다. 제3자가 부부의 일방과 부정행위를 함으로써 혼인의 본질에 해당하는 부부공동생활을 침해하거나 그 유지를 방해하고 그에 대한 배우자로서의 권리를 침해하여 배우자에게 정신적 고통을 가하는 행위도 원칙적으로 불법행위를 구성한다. 그리고 부부의 일방과 제3자가 부담하는 불법행위책임은 공동불법행위책임으로서 부진정연대채무 관계에 있다. [2] 이혼을 원인으로 하는 위자료청구권은 부부 일방의 유책·불법한 행위에 의하여 혼인관계가 파탄상태에 이르러 이혼하게 된 경우 그로 인하여 배우자가 입게 된 정신적 고통을 위자하기 위한 손해배상청구권으로서, 이혼의 원인이 되는 개별적 유책행위의 발생으로부터 최종적 이혼에 이르기까지 일련의 경과가 전체로서 불법행위로 파악되어 최종적 이혼 시점에서 확정·평가되며, 이 경우 피해자인 상대방 배우자는 혼인이 해소된 때에 그 손해 및 가해자를 알았다고 봄이 상당하므로, 그때부터 3년이 경과하여야 민법 제766조 제1항에서 정한 단기소멸시효가 완성된다. [3] 부부의 일방이 제3자와 부정행위를 한 경우에 상대방 배우자의 부부 일방 또는 제3자에 대한 이혼을 원인으로 하는 위자료청구는 가사소송법 제2조 제1항 제1호 (다)목 2)에서 정한 다류 가사소송사건에 해당한다. 이와 별개로 상대방 배우자는 이혼과 무관하게 부부의 일방 또는 제3자를 상대로 부부공동생활 중 발생한 개별적 부정행위를 불법행위로 파악하여 그로 인하여 입게 된 정신적 고통을 위자하기 위한 손해배상청구를 할 수 있고, 이는 통상의 민사사건에 속한다. 한편 이혼을 원인으로 하는 위자료청구에 해당하는지 여부는 구체적 사안에서 당사자의 의사, 당사자가 혼인관계를 유지하고 있는지, 협의 이혼의 성립 여부 또는 부부 일방이 재판상 이혼을 청구하였는지, 재판상 이혼청구 소송의 경과 등을 종합적으로 판단하여야 한다.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 청주지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Cheongju District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 민법 제751조 제1항, 제760조, 제826조 / [2] 민법 제751조 제1항, 제766조 제1항, 제806조, 제843조 / [3] 가사소송법 제2조 제1항 제1호 (다)목, 민법 제750조, 제751조 제1항, 제806조, 제843조
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger