1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from June 28, 2019 to February 6, 2020 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and C completed the marriage report on March 27, 2013, and the Plaintiff and C had two children in 2014 and year 2016.

B. Around October 2017, the Defendant was aware that C was a spouse at the nives club located in Mayang-dong, Seoyang-dong, Seoyang-dong, with the knowledge that C was the spouse at the Mayang-dong, the same day.

C. From January 15, 2018 to March 2018, the Defendant livedd with C in the instant case from around January 15, 2018 to March 3, 2018, and met several times.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit for divorce and consolation money against C as the net support of the Gwangju Family Court 2019ddan12027. On August 21, 2019, the plaintiff and C divorced, and the mediation of the contents of which the person in parental authority and the person in custody of their children are determined C was established.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7 (including a provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

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

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014). According to the above facts, the Defendant, even though his/her spouse was aware of, committed an unlawful act with C with C, thereby infringing upon and interfering with the common life of both the Plaintiff and C, thereby infringing on the Plaintiff’s spouse’s right, thereby causing mental distress to the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the emotional distress inflicted on the Plaintiff.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the marital relationship between the plaintiff and C has already been terminated before the defendant's wrongful act, but it is not sufficient to recognize only the statement of the evidence No. 1, and there is no other evidence to recognize it, the above argument

B. Illegal act between the defendant and C within the scope of liability for damages.