1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 10,000,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from March 25, 2016 to October 17, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 1, 1994, the Plaintiff has two children as a legally married couple who completed a marriage report with C on November 1, 1994.

B. The Defendant, despite being aware of the fact that C was in a marital relationship, committed unlawful acts, such as living together with C, from July 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 3 evidence, 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 of recognition, the Plaintiff is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the Defendant suffered considerable mental suffering due to the Defendant’s wrongful act, which caused the Defendant’s infringement or maintenance of his/her communal life, and thus, the Plaintiff is obliged to pay for mental damage suffered by the Plaintiff in money.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that since the marital relationship has been broken due to the failure of the plaintiff and the defendant's separation from the plaintiff before the plaintiff and the defendant brought about, the defendant does not infringe the plaintiff's common life or the right as the spouse of the plaintiff.

However, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the failure of the marital relationship between the plaintiff and C was caused at the time of the wrongful act, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

B. In light of all the circumstances revealed in the arguments in the instant case, such as the scope of liability for damages and the marriage period between the Plaintiff and C, the content and duration of the Defendant and C’s wrongful act, and the impact of the said improper act on the marriage relationship between the Plaintiff and C, it is reasonable to determine the amount of consolation money as KRW

Therefore, the defendant seeks consolation money of KRW 10 million from the plaintiff and the plaintiff about this.