A. The Plaintiff and C are married couple who completed the marriage report on September 2, 1985.

B. The Defendant knowingly known that C’s spouse had been a spouse, and committed unlawful acts, such as taking a bridge with C from around 2016 to March 2019, which was immediately before C’s death, and making a tour with multiple and continuous expression of patriotism.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions and images of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The act of a third party making a judgment by committing an unlawful act with the spouse, thereby infringing on a couple's communal life falling under the essence of marriage or interfering with the maintenance thereof and infringing on the spouse's right as the spouse, thereby causing mental pain to the spouse, constitutes a tort in principle;

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). Meanwhile, “illegal act” under Article 840 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act includes any act that is not faithful to the duty of good faith as a spouse, but is a broad concept rather than the so-called “illegal act” and “illegal act” ought to be evaluated in consideration of the degree and circumstances depending on specific cases.

(See Supreme Court Decision 92Meu68 delivered on November 10, 1992, etc.). Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Defendant is obliged to compensate for mental damages suffered by the Plaintiff, since it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the Defendant, despite being aware of the existence of a spouse, committed an unlawful act with C, thereby infringing on, or interfering with, a marital life falling under the essence of marriage between the Plaintiff and C, infringed on the Plaintiff’s right as the spouse, and thereby, the Plaintiff suffered considerable mental pain.

Furthermore, with respect to the amount of consolation money that the defendant is liable for, the health class, the marriage period and family relation of the plaintiff and C, the period and degree of fraudulent act between the defendant and C, the degree of suffering suffered by the plaintiff due to the defendant's fraudulent act, and the impact on the