1. The Defendant’s KRW 8,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from June 24, 2017 to October 17, 2018.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 17, 2006, the Plaintiff is a legal spouse who completed the marriage report with C on May 17, 2006 and has two children.

B. Around April 2017, the Defendant came to know with the Plaintiff’s female her female and his her female with C, and even after being aware of the fact that C was a female her female, the Defendant gifts C’s name tag to “I am well happy like C and present at all times, and I am love.”

C. On May 6, 2017, the Plaintiff became aware of the Defendant with the word “C” from the Defendant’s wife, with the meaning that C has winded with the Defendant.

C A around May 2017, residing in the D Building E at Kimpo-si, the plaintiff began to be separated from the plaintiff, and immediately after the above separation, the defendant went to the above residence with C or entered into the above residence by the defendant.

E. Around February 2018, the Plaintiff got a divorce by agreement with C.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Gap evidence 7 and 8, each and images (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. 1) In principle, a third party’s act of infringing on or impeding the maintenance of a married couple’s community life falling under the essence of marriage and infringing on the spouse’s right as the spouse by committing an unlawful act with the spouse, constitutes tort (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 201). Meanwhile, even if the spouse’s unlawful act does not amount to sexual intercourse, it includes any unlawful act that is not faithful to the husband’s duty of mutual assistance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu5, May 26, 1987). According to the above acknowledged facts, it is recognized that the Defendant committed an unlawful act with C knowing that it was a woman of the spouse C, and thus, it is obvious that the Plaintiff was suffering from mental pain in light of the empirical rule. Accordingly, the Defendant is a monetary horse against the Plaintiff.