A. The plaintiff is a legal couple who reported the marriage on December 21, 1993 with C and the legal couple who reported the marriage.

B. The Defendant had sexual intercourse with C from June 2013 to December 2013 or had contact with C.

C. The Plaintiff and C are not divorced.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The act of a third party making a judgment by committing an unlawful act with the spouse to infringe on or interfere with common life of the married couple falling under the essence of marriage and to inflict mental pain on the spouse by infringing on his/her right as the spouse, constitutes a tort in principle;

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997). “Unlawful act committed by a spouse” under Article 840 Subparag. 1 of the Civil Act is a wider concept including a adultery, and does not reach the common sense, but includes any unlawful act not conforming to the husband’s duty of good faith (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Meu7, May 24, 198). Whether an act constitutes an unlawful act ought to be evaluated in consideration of the degree and circumstances of each specific

(2) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the part of the Plaintiff’s spouse, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. In so doing, it is sufficient to view that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the part of the Plaintiff, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay a reasonable amount of consolation money to the plaintiff in order to compensate the damages caused by the above tort.

As to the amount of consolation money, it shall be reasonable to determine consolation money in KRW 10,000,00 in consideration of various circumstances shown in the entire pleadings, such as health class, the degree and period of fraudulent acts committed by the defendant and C, and the contents thereof.

Therefore, the defendant is a tort of this case against the plaintiff, which is KRW 10,000,000.