A. On April 19, 2012, the Plaintiff completed the marriage report with C.

B. From July 2016, the Defendant conspiredd with C, and thereafter, he knew that C had a spouse, and entered into a sex relationship with C.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3, 5 and 12 evidence (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

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

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014, etc.). According to the above facts, it is clear in light of the empirical rule that the Defendant, even though having knowledge of a spouse, committed an unlawful act, such as having a sexual intercourse, thereby infringing on or interfering with the community life of the Plaintiff and C, and that the Plaintiff was suffering from considerable mental suffering, the Defendant is obliged to pay consolation money for mental suffering suffered by the Plaintiff.

The defendant asserts that C was not aware of the fact that C was the father-child at the time of the first arrival, and that there was no intention to infringe on or interfere with the marital community life, or to have no intention to do so, since C was merely a reliance on the belief that the marital relationship with C had already reached the failure and the actual divorce lawsuit had been filed by C.

In light of the above evidence, it is reasonable to view that the defendant was aware of the fact that one net C was the father of the son while teaching with C. The remaining arguments are insufficient to recognize only the written evidence Nos. 1 through 8, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is acceptable.