1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from May 20, 2016 to September 8, 2016, and the following.

Facts of recognition

The plaintiff and D have two children under the chain of law as a married couple who completed the marriage report on December 15, 2003.

From December 2014, the defendant knew that D is the father's father's children.

Defendant and D have affixed a photograph with their face while traveling together, and have affixed the other party's English weak and date of birth on each other.

Around June 2015, the defendant sent the plaintiff's mobile phone pictures and literary photographs to the plaintiff's mobile phone while disputing the plaintiff that became aware of his/her relationship with D.

On July 17, 2015, the Defendant sent a text message to the Plaintiff, “I do not have any way to keep you free from post, which is a certificate of love, so it is difficult for men to do so only within this problem.”

On August 3, 2015, the Plaintiff and D drafted a written agreement with D's external roads for a certain period of time, such as divorce after consultation.

On March 30, 2016, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with an unknown depression, etc.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 4 through 6 (including the number of branch numbers), 8, 9 (including the number of branch numbers), Eul 3, and the overall purport of arguments by a third party who made an unlawful act with one of the married couple, thereby infringing or interfering with the maintenance of marital life falling under the essence of marriage and causing mental suffering to the spouse by infringing his/her rights as his/her spouse, constitutes a tort in principle.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Meu2441, May 29, 2015). According to the above recognition, the Defendant, by committing an unlawful act with D and his/her spouse, infringed upon the Plaintiff’s communal living or interfered with the maintenance thereof, thereby infringing on the Plaintiff’s rights.

As a result, it is clear in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff suffered mental suffering, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money to the plaintiff.

Furthermore, we examine the amount of consolation money.