The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 50 million won with 15% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

The defendant committed both unlawful acts, which are the spouse of the plaintiff, and caused the failure of the relationship between the plaintiff and Byung. The defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff a solatium of KRW 50 million and damages for delay.

2. Determination

A. According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 3-1, 2, 3, and 4-6 evidence Nos. 1, 1-2, 3-3 of evidence Nos. 3-2, and 1-3 of evidence Nos. 4 through 6, testimony of witness at the court of first instance, and fact inquiry conducted by the court of first instance, the plaintiff and Byung were legally married couple who reported marriage on April 29, 197, Byung was aware of the fact that he had been serving as an executive officer of the Switzerland with the defendant who operates the Switzerland, and was concurrently registered as an executive officer of the Switzerland. At the same time, the defendant made several characters or voice calls from May 2, 2015 to August 2016, the defendant was concurrently registered as a branch of Byung on April 2, 2016, and the defendant was traveling for 1-2,000 days with other women and 1-2,000 children, and the defendant received the defendant's remaining 3-day and 2,0 days.

However, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that there was a fraudulent act between the defendant and the defendant on the sole basis of the above facts of recognition and the statement of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2-2 submitted by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case

B. Meanwhile, if the husband and wife did not have yet been divorced, but the marital life was actually broken down and has reached an irrecoverable level, even if a third party’s sexual act did not infringe on or interfere with the marital community life, and thus, it cannot be deemed that a tort has been committed on the part of the husband and wife. (See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). According to the purport of the evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence No. 5 and argument, if the Plaintiff and Byung used each side for more than 10 years and actually lived at the home, and on June 30, 2016, the Plaintiff agreed to divorce between the Plaintiff and Byung and the court, but the Plaintiff did not reach an agreement on division of property, and thus, the Plaintiff’s refusal to divorce and the Plaintiff did not appear at home. In light of these facts, the Plaintiff and Byung’s marital relationship can be acknowledged.

The Defendant appears to have been in an irrecoverable state due to the failure of the marriage at the time of the emergency. Therefore, even if the Defendant committed a wrongful act, it is difficult to deem that the marriage relationship between the Plaintiff and the Byung occurred due to such unlawful act. Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is without merit in this respect.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with some different conclusions, it accepted the defendant's appeal and revoked the part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance, and dismissed the plaintiff's claim as to

Judge Muma decoration

Judges Dognaia