1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 10 million.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff and C are legally married couple who reported their marriage on May 25, 199, and have two children under the slurries.

B. around 2011, C began to serve as an employee in the “E” located in the Defendant and Guri-si Ddong, and committed unlawful acts such as drinking alcohol or drinking sexual intercourse with the Defendant from time to time.

C. The Defendant had sexual intercourse with C several times at the same place, including the fact that the Plaintiff and C had sexual intercourse with C on December 9, 2014, in the Guri-si, which the Plaintiff and C live.

Around December 2014, the Defendant threatened C by saying, “I would know about our relationship with B, I will not come. I will not come to our country if you do not go.” On January 17, 2015, the Defendant called “C by phone call to C on a knife the children of middle school students who are knife at the knife if I would not know the changed home number and cell phone number.”

E. Around January 2015, the Plaintiff became aware of the relationship between the Defendant and C, and filed a complaint with the Defendant based on the facts under the preceding paragraph. Accordingly, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1 million by the District Court on March 30, 2015 as a crime of intimidation.

2. Determination

A. The act that a third party who is liable for damages causes mental pain to the spouse by committing an unlawful act with the spouse of the married couple, thereby infringing on the common life of the married couple falling under the essence of the marriage or interfering with the maintenance thereof and infringing on the spouse's right as the spouse, constitutes tort in principle.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Meu2441 Decided May 29, 2015, and Supreme Court Decision 2004Da1899 Decided May 13, 2005, etc.). As seen in the foregoing facts of recognition, the Defendant continued to teach C for a considerable period with knowledge of the spouse of C, which is contrary to the nature of marriage.