1. The Defendant’s KRW 13,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from October 5, 2016 to May 10, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From around 2004, the Plaintiff has a de facto marital relationship with C, and is a legal couple who has completed the marriage report on December 13, 2010 and has one child under the chain.

B. On May 2016, the Defendant: (a) known that C had a spouse from the age club to August 2016, 2016, and (b) provided C with telephone conversations and Kakaox messages on two occasions with knowledge that C had a spouse; and (c) provided C with telephone conversations and Kakaox messages.

C. The Plaintiff and C currently live together and maintain a matrimonial relationship.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above fact of recognition of the liability for damages, the Defendant, from May 2016 to August 2016, caused mental suffering to the Plaintiff, who is the spouse of C, by committing an unlawful act, such as having sexual intercourse with C, etc., and thus, is liable for compensating the Plaintiff for the mental suffering.

B. The amount of consolation money shall be determined as KRW 13,00,000 in consideration of all the circumstances, such as the above recognition scope and pleading, the process and period of marital life of the Plaintiff and C, the period and degree of the commission of the unlawful act by the Defendant and C, the impact of the Defendant’s improper act on the marriage between the Plaintiff and C, and the circumstances after the commission of the

C. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the solatium 13,00,000 and the damages for delay calculated at each rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from October 5, 2016 to May 10, 2017, which is deemed reasonable for the Defendant to dispute on the scope of the obligation to perform from October 5, 2016, the following day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff after the date of tort.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.