A. The Plaintiff is a legal couple who completed the marriage report in around C and 1986.

B. C came to know of the Defendant around 2008, and met South Korea, around 2009, and was living together with the Defendant on January 24, 2020. The Defendant was aware that C was in a legal marital relationship with the Plaintiff.

C. C was present at the marriage ceremony of the son and female born between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, and was not completely contacted with the Plaintiff, such as the Plaintiff’s delivery of mails. However, while residing with the Defendant, while living together with the Defendant, and attending as her father or her father, C was actually married with the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 13, the entry of Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The act that a third party who is liable for damages causes mental distress to the spouse by infringing on or interfering with the common life of the married couple falling under the essence of marriage and infringing on the rights of the spouse as the spouse by committing an unlawful act with the spouse of the married couple constitutes a tort in principle.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014). According to the above facts, even if the defendant knew that he/she is a spouse of C, it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that he/she committed an unlawful act with C, thereby infringing upon or impeding the maintenance of the marital life of the plaintiff and C, and that the plaintiff would have suffered considerable mental suffering. Thus, the defendant is obliged to pay consolation money for mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the defendant's living together with the plaintiff and C is not a tort after the failure of both the plaintiff and C to the extent that it is impossible to recover.