In November 27, 1998, the plaintiff and C have two children under the chain of law as a married couple who has completed the marriage report.

The defendant became aware of C in the DNA around November 2011.

From the end of December 2015, even though C became aware of the fact that he was the father and the son around that time, the Defendant associated with C while traveling with C, 1 Gangwon-do Seojinpo, Gangwon-do, and Jeju-do, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, from time to time.

After having become aware of the relationship between C and the defendant, the plaintiff is receiving a mental and medical treatment by withholding divorce as a child problem.

[Ground of recognition] Fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 15 evidence (including a branch number if there is a tentative number) and the purport of the whole pleadings, but the third party's act of committing an unlawful act with one of the married couple, thereby infringing on or interfering with the common life of the married couple falling under the essence of marriage and infringing on his/her rights as his/her spouse, thereby causing mental suffering to the spouse, in principle, constitutes tort.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Meu2441, May 29, 2015). The Defendant, by committing an unlawful act with C and his spouse, infringed upon the Plaintiff’s community life or interfered with the maintenance thereof, and infringed on the Plaintiff’s right.

As a result, it is clear in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff suffered mental suffering, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money to the plaintiff.

Furthermore, we examine the amount of consolation money.

Considering all circumstances revealed in the arguments, such as the circumstance in which the defendant committed a fraudulent act with C, the period and contents of the fraudulent act, the marriage period of the plaintiff and C, and the degree of mental suffering that the plaintiff suffered by the fraudulent act, it is reasonable to determine the amount of consolation money as KRW 15 million.

Therefore, the defendant is the day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the plaintiff to the plaintiff as to KRW 15 million.