1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 10,000,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from June 21, 2014 to May 12, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a legally married couple who completed the marriage report on July 26, 2001, and has three children under the chain, and maintains marital relations until the date of the closing of the argument in this case.

B. The Defendant, as the representative director of a company that performs food services, became to be employed by C in the company at around December 2013, and became to work as C.

C. From the end of May 2014, upon knowing that C had a legal spouse, the Defendant maintained the relationship between C and C, including having hours different from C after meeting at work. On June 21, 2015, the Defendant had sexual intercourse at C and Mour after meeting at work.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the claim

(a) A third party who has a liability for damages shall not interfere with a married couple’s communal life, which corresponds to the essence of marriage, by intervening in a marital life of another person;

Therefore, in principle, a third party's act of infringing on or interfering with a couple's common life falling under the essence of marriage and infringing on a spouse's right as the spouse, thereby causing mental pain to the spouse constitutes a tort.

At this time, the concept of "illegal act" includes a more extensive concept, but does not reach the gap between the parties, but all unlawful acts that are not faithful to the duty of mutual assistance of the married couple are included therein, and the degree and situation should be considered in accordance with each specific case.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014; Supreme Court Decision 2010Meu4095, Nov. 28, 2013). As regards the instant case, the act committed by C as seen in the health care unit and the above fact-finding, constitutes an act committed by a husband and wife who breached his/her duty of care as a husband and wife, and the Defendant took part in such act, and thus, the Defendant is so determined.