A. The Plaintiff and C are married couple who completed the marriage report on May 7, 2008, and their children were born in 2009 and 2010.

B. With knowledge of the existence of a spouse, the Defendant sent C with the relationship with C, including having sexual intercourses with C several times from July 2019 to September 2019.

【Ground of recognition】 Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1, 2, 6, and 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

(a) A third party who has a liability for damages shall not interfere with a married life falling under the nature of marriage, such as intervening in a marital life of another person and causing a failure of the marital life;

In principle, a third party's act of infringing on a couple's communal life falling under the essence of marriage or interfering with the maintenance thereof and infringing on the right as the spouse's right to it and causing mental pain to the spouse shall constitute a tort.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da1899, May 13, 2005; Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant, by engaging in an unlawful act with the plaintiff’s spouse C, thereby infringing upon the plaintiff’s and C’s right as the plaintiff’s spouse, thereby infringing upon the plaintiff’s right to the community life of the plaintiff and C, or interfering with its maintenance. It is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff suffered mental

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money to the plaintiff as compensation for mental damage.

The defendant asserts to the effect that the marital relationship between the plaintiff and the plaintiff has already failed due to the excessive consumption of C before the plaintiff's expulsion, the depression caused by the plaintiff's violent nature, the conflict with other males, etc., and that the marital relationship between the plaintiff and the plaintiff did not lead to the failure due to the defendant's unlawful act.

However, evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 6, which the defendant invoked as profits, are respectively used.