A. The plaintiff is a husband and wife who completed the marriage report on April 1, 1989.

B. On December 22, 2016, the Defendant, at the ancient flag house operated by C, was aware of C while having her friendship and meals, and maintained the Buddhist relationship by November 11, 2018, by recognizing that C is a father-Nam, with knowledge that it is a father-Nam, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 18 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. 1) A third party’s liability for damages does not interfere with a married couple’s communal living falling under the essence of marriage by interfering with a married couple’s communal living by causing a failure of the married couple’s communal living by participating in another person’s marital life. A third party’s act of infringing on or maintaining a married couple’s communal living falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with one of the married couple, and thereby infringing on the spouse’s right as the spouse and causing mental distress to the spouse (Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014), in principle, constitutes tort (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 201). According to the above fact-finding, the Defendant committed unlawful act, such as having knowledge of a marital relationship with the Plaintiff, thereby infringing on the spouse’s right as the spouse of the Plaintiff and C by interfering with its maintenance, and as such, it is obvious in light of empirical rule that the Plaintiff suffered considerable mental pain due to the Defendant’s tort.

B. In light of all the circumstances revealed in the arguments in the instant case, such as the scope of liability for damages and the period of marital life of the Plaintiff and C, the period and degree of fraudulent act committed by the Defendant and C, and the influence of such fraudulent act on the marital life of the Plaintiff and C, it is reasonable to determine the amount of consolation money to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff as KRW 3

Therefore, the defendant.