The defendant's KRW 13 million to the plaintiff and its 5% per annum from March 7, 2020 to October 16, 2020.

The summary of the case - The plaintiff of the party's assertion is seeking a payment of consolation money to the defendant on the ground of an unlawful act with C, the spouse.

On this issue, the defendant is merely between C and Dong-gu meetings, and is arguing the premise of the tort alleged by the plaintiff.

Judgment

As Supreme Court Decision 2010Meu4095 Decided November 28, 2013, etc. (Supreme Court Decision 2010Meu4095 Decided November 28, 2013), “Cheating” under Article 840(1) of the Civil Act includes a broad concept that includes the adultery, and includes any unlawful act that does not reach the unity of the husband and wife’s duty of mutual assistance even if it does not reach the unity.

In this case, the issue of whether it is an illegal act shall be assessed in consideration of the degree and circumstances according to the specific case.

In examining the case of this case, according to the following facts and circumstances, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant and C have engaged in unjust relations within the meaning of fin, according to the records of Gap's evidence 2 through 12 (in the case of green recording files, including voice contents) and the fact inquiry reply to Eul's company:

From July 2019 (the time when the plaintiff could have confirmed the details of the telephone call prior to the filing of the instant suit) the defendant and C have given and received this frequently at least three times a day.

(A) Nos. 2-1 through 5. Even when considering the content of the sending and receipt of E’s messages, the Defendant and C sent approximately KRW 7,000 messages of each and every day from February to May of this year.

In addition, the time for giving and receiving the message also continued from the invasion to the new wall of the message.

(E inquiry reply). In light of the frequency, time, etc. of giving and receiving such messages, the Defendant and C cannot be viewed as a common friendship.

Even according to the contents of dialogue between the plaintiff and the defendant (Evidence A No. 11).