A. Defendant B’s KRW 5 million and as to this, 5% per annum from February 8, 2017 to September 5, 2017.

A. The Plaintiff and D reported their marriage on March 2, 2007, but they reported their divorce on February 12, 2013, and on December 18, 2013, they are legally married couple who reported their marriage again on December 18, 2013 and have two children under the chain.

B. From August 2016, Defendant B knew that he/she had a spouse, sent contact with D and cellular phone from time to time, and had sexual intercourse several times.

In addition, Defendant B had a sexual intercourse with D on January 2016, and it was also intended to take the sex-related image as a mobile phone.

C. From January 2016, Defendant C sent contact with D and cellular phone, etc. from time to time, and even Gunsan Si/Gu/Gu in which D had resided, Defendant C was found to have been in contact with D, and as above, Defendant C had sexual intercourses with D at least three times in the course of meta.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including branch numbers for those with branch numbers), Eul's each entry or video of the evidence No. 1, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. If one side of a couple’s liability for damages commits a tort against a third party and a third party’s duty of sexual good faith that should not be committed, it shall be a cause of judicial divorce pursuant to Article 840 of the Civil Act and shall be liable to compensate for mental suffering suffered by the spouse due to such cause.

Furthermore, a third party should not interfere with a married couple’s community life, which is the essence of the marriage, by intervening in a couple’s community life of another person and causing the failure of the couple’s community life.

Therefore, if a third party commits an act of infringing on a marital life falling under the essence of marriage or interfering with the maintenance thereof, and infringing on the right as the spouse, thereby causing mental pain to the spouse, it constitutes a tort.

The wrongful act in this context does not reach the gap as a wider concept, including the gap.