1. The Defendant’s KRW 12,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from June 10, 2016 to November 17, 2016, and the following.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant, who is the spouse of the Plaintiff, frequently met with the Plaintiff’s spouse, and committed unlawful acts with sexual intercourse, thereby suffering a considerable mental suffering by the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for mental damage.

B. The Plaintiff submitted Kakao Stockholm messages (No. 1-1-22) and a written statement (Evidence A-2). The Plaintiff’s Kakao Stockholm messages cannot be identified as having obtained any process by the Plaintiff, and it is doubtful as to whether there was a legitimate consent of the originator C at the time of acquisition, and the written statement is inadmissible as it was written by the Plaintiff’s coercion.

At the time when the defendant was married with C, the marital relationship between the plaintiff and C had already been broken down to the extent that it could not be recovered, so even if the defendant committed a wrongful act with C, he is not liable to the defendant for the tort.

Even if the defendant's liability is recognized, the amount of damages should be calculated in consideration of the negligence of C, which is the joint tortfeasor.

2. Determination

(a) A third party who has a liability for damages shall not interfere with a married couple's community life falling under the nature of marriage, such as interfering with a couple's community life by interfering with another person's community life;

In principle, a third party's act of infringing on or interfering with a marital life falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with either side of the married couple and causing mental pain to the spouse by infringing on the rights of the spouse as the spouse.

(Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014). “Cheating” in this context refers to a wider concept, including the adultery, which does not reach the common sense, but does not reach the common sense, includes any unlawful act that is not faithful to the husband’s duty of mutual assistance, and whether it is an unlawful act or not should be evaluated in consideration of the degree and situation of the specific case.

Supreme Court Decision 200