A. The Plaintiff and C are legally married couple who completed the marriage report on June 2, 2009.

B. C and the Defendant worked in the same workplace, and developed from the end of 2015 to the relationship with one another, and entered into a mutual gender relationship.

C. Around March 2016, the Defendant promised not to re-explate C to the Plaintiff, but even thereafter, met with C continued, and the relationship between C and C was completely organized around October 2016.

The plaintiff and C are running church activities with no divorce procedures.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 10 evidence, Eul 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

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

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Meu2441 Decided May 29, 2015, and Supreme Court Decision 2004Da1899 Decided May 13, 2005, etc.). According to the above basic facts, the Defendant, while being aware that C is a spouse, conspired with each other.

This constitutes an unlawful act that infringes on a marital life contrary to the essence of marriage or interferes with the maintenance thereof and infringes on the rights of the plaintiff's spouse.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to do so in money for mental damage suffered by the plaintiff.

B. Considering various circumstances revealed in the arguments in the instant case, such as the content, degree, and period of the unlawful act committed by the Defendant and C, which can be known from the above basic facts within the scope of liability for damages, and the impact of the said unlawful act on the marriage between the Plaintiff and C, the amount of consolation money that the Defendant is liable to compensate for to the Plaintiff is reasonable.

Therefore, the defendant shall pay consolation money to the plaintiff KRW 5,000,000 and this case.