A. The Plaintiff and C are legally married couple who reported marriage on February 6, 2012, and have two children.

B. The Defendant: (a) exchanged letters from the end of 2015 to the end of April 2016; and (b) exchanged letters from the workplace to the end of 2016; and (c) exchanged sexual intercourses.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Determination

A. In principle, a third party's act of infringing on or interfering with a 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 mental pain to the spouse constitutes a tort.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant committed an unlawful act with C, the Plaintiff’s spouse, thereby infringing on the marital relationship between the Plaintiff and C, or interfering with its maintenance, thereby causing mental pain to the Plaintiff. This constitutes tort against the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money to the plaintiff due to the above illegal act.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that since the marital relationship between the plaintiff and C had already failed and could not be recovered, the defendant did not constitute a tort even if he/she did so with C.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the defendant's assertion, and the defendant's above assertion is not acceptable.

With respect to the amount of consolation money, it is reasonable to determine consolation money as KRW 15,00,000 in consideration of the various circumstances shown in the pleadings, such as health team, the fact of the recognition thereof, and the degree and period of the misconduct committed by the defendant and C, the details thereof, the marriage period and family relationship between the plaintiff and C, and the influence of the defendant's improper act on the

Therefore, the defendant is against the plaintiff.