A. A third party of the relevant legal doctrine shall not interfere with a married couple’s community life, which falls under the essence of marriage, by intervening in a couple’s community life of another person and causing failure of a couple’s community life.

In principle, a third party's act of infringing on or interfering with a marital life falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with either side of the married couple and causing mental pain to the spouse by infringing on the rights of the spouse as the spouse.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014).B.

In fact, the plaintiff has completed the marriage report with C on January 9, 2012, and has been maintaining a marital life until now, and has 2 South and North Korean women under the chain.

From June 2016, the Defendant first known of the age club of C as a customer from around 2016, and thereafter, even though C had been married, it continued to contact with C until around the day of the instant lawsuit, and committed unlawful acts, such as having sexual intercourses.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-12, Gap evidence 4-6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

C. According to the above facts of determination, the defendant's above act constitutes a tort against the plaintiff, and since it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff had suffered considerable mental suffering, the defendant is obligated to compensate for mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff.

2. Considering the various circumstances revealed in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the scope of liability for damages and the period of marriage between the Plaintiff and C, the period of fraudulent act between the Defendant and C, and the fact that the marital relationship between the Plaintiff and C does not reach a failure, the amount of consolation money shall be set at KRW 8,00,000

Therefore, the Defendant’s damages amounting to KRW 8,00,000 and the Defendant’s damages amounting to the Plaintiff from December 14, 2016, as sought by the Plaintiff, following the delivery date of a copy of the instant complaint, as the Plaintiff seeks.