A. On December 22, 2014, the Plaintiff and C have one child (one child in 2015) as a legally married couple who completed a marriage report on December 22, 2014.

B. The Defendant, despite being aware of the existence of a spouse, knew of the fact that he/she had a spouse, had a sexual intercourse with C from March 2017 to May 201 of the same year.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. 1) In principle, a third party’s act of infringing on or impeding the maintenance of a married couple’s communal life falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with the spouse, and infringing on the spouse’s right as the spouse, thereby causing emotional distress to the spouse, constitutes a tort (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 201). 2) According to the above acknowledged facts, the Defendant, even though he/she is aware that he/she is a spouse, has committed an unlawful act with C, thereby infringing on or interfering with the Plaintiff’s communal life with C, and thus, is liable to compensate for emotional distress inflicted on the Plaintiff.

B. In full view of all the circumstances shown in the records and arguments in the instant case, such as the scope of damages and the marriage period and family relationship between the Plaintiff and C, the content, period, and degree of the unlawful act committed by the Defendant and C, the influence of the Defendant’s improper act on the Plaintiff’s marital life, and the circumstances after the occurrence of the unlawful act, it is reasonable to determine the amount of consolation money to be paid to the Plaintiff

C. According to the theory of lawsuit, the Defendant, as the result of the Defendant’s tort, is KRW 15,00,000 as compensation for damages caused by the tort, and the following day from August 31, 2019, the day following the delivery date of the duplicate of the complaint of this case, to August 14, 2020, deemed reasonable for the Defendant to dispute the existence and scope of the obligation.