A. The Plaintiff is a spouse under the law that reported marriage with C on March 20, 2013.

B. The Defendant maintained an online-friendly relationship, such as exchanging with C in mobile games in November 2019 and exchanging personal messages, and maintained an online-friendly relationship. From January 3, 2020 to January 3, 2020

1. up to 9.0 days, C had been traveling in Jeju-do where C had been living in Jeju-do.

C initially made a false statement to the Defendant that he/she was unmarried or divorced, but the Defendant, despite having known that he/she had a spouse and child after January 9, 2020, issued an unlawful act, such as exchanging letters containing C and patriotic expressions or raising character while sharing C and games.

【Unsatisfyal grounds for recognition】 Each entry in the evidence Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 13, and 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Establishment of liability for damages;

(a) A third party shall not interfere with a married couple’s community life falling under the essence of marriage, such as interfering with a couple’s community life by causing the failure of a couple’s community life, etc.;

In principle, a third party’s act of infringing on or interfering with a couple’s communal life falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with the spouse, and infringing on the spouse’s right as the spouse, thereby causing mental pain to the spouse constitutes a tort (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Meu 2997, Nov. 20, 2014, etc.). (b) According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the Defendant committed an unlawful act with C, thereby causing mental harm to the Plaintiff.

It is reasonable to view it.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money to the plaintiff as compensation for mental damage, and the period of duration of marital life between the plaintiff and C, family relationship, period during which the defendant and C committed an unlawful act, and as if C was not the father of the defendant at first, it is false that the defendant was not the father of the defendant.