1. The Defendant’s KRW 13,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from May 20, 2017 to January 31, 2019 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and C are legally married couple who completed the marriage report on April 14, 2015.

B. The Defendant, despite being aware that C had a spouse by marriage, committed an unlawful act, such as having sexual intercourse in the telecom, etc., while going through the same tour from February 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts that there is no dispute or do not clearly dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. We examine the judgment, and the third party's act of infringing on a couple's common life falling under the essence of marriage or impeding the maintenance thereof and infringing on a spouse's right as the spouse, and thereby causing mental suffering to the spouse constitutes a tort. As seen above, the defendant's act constitutes a tort against the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant's act constitutes a tort against the plaintiff, and the defendant has a duty to pay monetary suffering suffered by the plaintiff.

Furthermore, with regard to the amount of consolation money, the amount of consolation money shall be determined at KRW 13,00,000, considering various circumstances shown in the pleadings of the instant case, such as health group, the marriage period between the Plaintiff and C, the content and duration of the misconduct committed by the Defendant and C, and the influence of the misconduct on the family relationship.

B. According to the theory of litigation, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the consolation money of KRW 13,00,000 and the damages for delay calculated at each rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from May 20, 2017, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, until January 31, 2019, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is the day of the adjudication of this case, and the day after the next day to the day of full payment.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and thus, it is dismissed as the remaining claim is without merit.