1. Of the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff who is ordered to pay below.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 16, 2006, the Plaintiff is a legal couple who reported a marriage with D on April 16, 2006, and has 1 South and North son under the sleb.

B. The Defendant became aware of D while leasing sudio in Chuncheon-si managed by D. However, even though having a spouse, the Defendant knew of D’s existence, and committed unlawful acts, such as having sexual intercourses several times from March 2015 to May 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

(a) A third party shall not interfere with a marital life which corresponds to the nature of the marriage, such as intervening in a marital life of another person and causing a failure of the marital life;

In principle, a third party's act of infringing on a couple's communal life falling under the essence of marriage or interfering with the maintenance thereof and infringing on the right as the spouse's right to it and causing mental pain to the spouse shall constitute a tort.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014, etc.). B.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant committed an unlawful act with D, who is the spouse of the plaintiff, thereby infringing on the marital relationship between the plaintiff and D or impeding its maintenance, thereby suffering mental pain to the plaintiff, and this constitutes a tort against the plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money for tort to the plaintiff.

Although the Defendant alleged to the effect that D was unaware of his/her spouse’s existence, the Defendant alleged to the effect that D did not know that D had a spouse, that is, that is, the following circumstances acknowledged by considering the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement of the evidence No. 3, that the Defendant, in the currency with the Plaintiff on May 20, 2015, stated that “whether D would not have finished without being aware of the fact that D would not have come into existence,” the Defendant’s allegation to the effect that “the crime was committed by failing to keep the contact at the end of his/her time in burial.”