1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 15 million to the Plaintiff; and (b) 5% per annum from October 23, 2015 to May 26, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and C shall complete the marriage report on March 20, 2009, and have his/her married couple in 2010 and children living in 2012.

B. Around 2012, the Defendant came to know C and maintained an unlawful relationship between C and C by being detained and punished as a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. from that time until August 2015.

C. From the date of release as above, C demanded the Defendant not to contact. However, even thereafter, the Defendant continued to attempt to have a telephone conversation between C and the Plaintiff, and repeated the act of transmitting text messages and Kakakaox messages, and C filed an application against the Defendant for provisional injunction against access under Busan District Court 2015Kahap10475, Nov. 25, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 22, and 26 evidence (including branch numbers, if any), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. A) A third party’s liability for damages may not interfere with a couple’s communal living falling under the essence of marriage by intervening in a couple’s communal living of another person. A third party’s act of infringing on or maintaining a couple’s communal living falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with one of the married couple, and infringing on the spouse’s right as the spouse, thereby causing emotional distress to the spouse (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). 2) In principle, the act of causing emotional distress to the spouse constitutes tort in light of the foregoing legal principles (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 201). According to the foregoing recognition, the Defendant maintained an inappropriate relationship with C from around 2012 to August 20, 2015.