A. The plaintiff is a legally married couple who completed the marriage report on December 10, 1992 with C and the two children (the birth of 1994).

B. Around 2008, the Defendant came to know of C around 2008 and came to have a year after the lapse of 2 to 3 months.

C. After that, C returned to the Defendant’s house, almost every day, and C returned home. D.

On May 2015, the Plaintiff became aware of the fact that C had come to contact with the Defendant, and around August 2015 of the same year, the Plaintiff came to know of the fact that C had come to contact with the Defendant who had come to contact with C’s mobile phone.

E. From July 9, 2016 to November 11, 2016, Defendant and C also worked in Taiwan.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 5, 8, and 9 (including virtual numbers) or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff asserts that, inasmuch as the Defendant committed an unlawful act with C while knowing the circumstance that C is the father and son, thereby infringing the Plaintiff’s community life and suffering from mental distress, the Defendant should pay consolation money of KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff. 2), the Defendant asserted that the Defendant’s claim is unjustifiable, on the ground that C was not aware of the father and son’s marital condition and provided a marital relationship on the premise of marriage. Accordingly, the Defendant did not intend to infringe the Plaintiff’s marital life. On July 30, 2015, the Plaintiff’s marital life was already broken down to the extent that it is impossible to recover from the Plaintiff and C’s marital life, even if the Defendant met even after around July 2016, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff infringed the Plaintiff’s community life.

B. (1) Determination 1) An act of a third party who is liable for damages by committing an unlawful act with the spouse, thereby infringing on or impeding the maintenance of a married couple’s community life falling under the essence of marriage and infringing on the spouse’s right as the spouse, thereby causing emotional distress to the spouse, constitutes tort in principle (see Supreme Court Decision 200