1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from September 15, 2017 to January 31, 2018.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 13, 1986, the Plaintiff has two children as a legal couple who completed the marriage report with C on March 13, 1986.

B. The Defendant, despite being aware that C had a spouse by marriage, had been married to C and C, from around January 2015 to around January 2017, exchanged letters that she would have continued to love, and committed unlawful acts, such as kiscing the photographs kiscing each other in C’s mobile phone.

C. On the other hand, on January 30, 2017, the Plaintiff was dissatisfied with C, and the Plaintiff came to move to the police by making a report that the Plaintiff and C’s children at the time reported to the police “when they come to the police”, and later C was paid back with the Defendant.

On June 13, 2017, the Plaintiff and C were off the clothes of C during the process of putting the clothes of C, which the Plaintiff would not get his house while drinking again for the first time after a separate drinking on June 13, 2017, and the police called up upon the report of the passing person and taken measures for returning home after the investigation of the Plaintiff and C.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including branch numbers in case of additional number) and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the defendant, even though he/she is a spouse of C, maintained an inhumanity relationship with C. As seen above, the defendant's act of infringing on the marital life falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with the spouse of the married couple, interfering with the maintenance thereof, and infringing on the spouse's right as the spouse, thereby causing mental pain to the spouse constitutes a tort (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014; Supreme Court Decision 2004Da1899, May 13, 2005). Accordingly, since the plaintiff was obviously suffering from considerable mental pain in light of the empirical rule, the defendant is liable to compensate for the mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff in money.

(b) furthermore;