1. The Defendant’s KRW 8,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from December 16, 2014 to August 6, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 28, 1986, the Plaintiff and C have two children as legal married couple and two children.

B. From around 2007, the Defendant, while working in C’s company, knew of the existence of C’s spouse, had sexual intercourse with C, etc., and gave birth of D’s E.

C. C is a person living together with the Defendant, who was living together with the Plaintiff, who was living together with the Defendant around May 201.

From around 2003, the Plaintiff suffered losses while playing the bonds with knowledge of C, and it was no longer able to cope with the debt, and around April 201, C talked about that fact to C, and C paid money on behalf of the Plaintiff.

E. On August 21, 2013, the Plaintiff drafted a written statement to the effect that “A marriage has been broken down due to the Plaintiff’s fault, and C wishes to divorce,” respectively.

F. C asserted against the Plaintiff that the marital relationship with the Plaintiff came to be broken down as the court 2014da8632, and filed a lawsuit claiming a divorce.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 through 6, 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 Decision 2004Da1899 Decided May 13, 2005, etc.). According to the above facts, the defendant, despite being aware that C is a spouse, has continuously established an inhuman relationship for a considerable period of time, and the defendant's act was infringed upon the plaintiff's marital relationship or interfered with its maintenance. Since it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff was suffering from considerable mental suffering, the defendant is suffering from the plaintiff's mental suffering.