1. The Defendant’s KRW 17,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from June 27, 2019 to March 24, 2020 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 30, 1996, the Plaintiff filed a marriage report with his wife C and 2 women (D and E) under the chain, and transferred to Hong Kong for business after marriage, and has maintained C and family with his domicile in Hong Kong until now.

B. Since around 2016, C had a large number of daughters attend a private teaching institute located in Seoul as a university issue, and had a hotel located in Gangnam-gu for two months long-term accommodation. The Defendant became aware of around that time.

C. After having become aware of C as above, the Defendant maintained an inappropriate relationship until June 2019, with the knowledge that C was a woman, around July 2016, and around July 2017, at Seoul, 2017, the Defendant maintained an inappropriate relationship by around July 2019, by around July 2019, such as: (a) aduplicing twice adups in Seoul; (b) adupsing twice adups in Seoul around August 2018; and (c) adups in Hong Kong, twice adups in Seoul around June 2019.

The defendant served as visiting professor at F University public policy graduate schools, and as inappropriate relation with C was discovered to the plaintiff, the relationship with C was organized.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without any dispute, Gap's 1 through 5, Eul's 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Determination

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

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014, etc.). According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant committed an unlawful act with the Plaintiff’s spouse, thereby infringing on or hindering the Plaintiff’s communal living and his/her spouse’s right as his/her spouse, and thereby infringing on the Plaintiff’s right as his/her spouse. As such, it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the Plaintiff suffered severe mental suffering. Therefore, the Defendant is mentally and mentally