Subjects of a claim for consolation money
Claim for consolation money for third parties at fault for the breakdown of marriage- Consolation money may be sought from a person who supplied the cause of divorce [Articles 750, 751, 806, and 843 of the Civil Act; Article 2(1)1(c)(ii) of the Family Litigation Act]. Therefore, if a spouse is responsible for the breakdown of the marriage, it may be sought from such spouse; while if a third party such as a parent-in-law is at fault, it may be sought from such a third party.
※ When a third party is at fault for the breakdown of the marriage
· Examples include a parent-in-law, mistress, or the spouse’s adulterous lover, etc. wrongfully interfering in the marriage to break it down or a spouse being assaulted, abused, or insulted by a parent-in-law to the extent it would be cruel to compel the continuation of the marriage relationship (e.g., Supreme Court Judgment 2003Meu1890 announced on February 27, 2004; Supreme Court Judgment 96Meu1434 announced on April 10, 1998), etc.
Claim for payment of damages for a third party’s tort after the breakdown of the marriage- Once joint married life has broken down because of spousal discord and long-term separation, with the substance of married life extinguished and objectively in an irreparable state, a spouse cannot claim damages from a third party who has committed adultery with the other spouse (Supreme Court Judgment 2001Meu2997 announced on November 20, 2014).
※ When a third-party liability to pay damages is not found
· The Supreme Court rules that “When the joint married life of a married couple who have not yet divorced has broken down irreparably in substance, a third party’s adultery with one of the spouses can neither be deemed an infringement of joint married life nor an interference with its maintenance nor does it give rise to injury to rights over the spouses’ joint married life; it, therefore, does not constitute a tort. Nor does this legal conclusion change because the claim for judicial divorce is in continuation or has not been brought (Supreme Court Judgment 2011Meu2997 announced on November 20, 2014).”