1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The facts below the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5.

On June 11, 1979, the plaintiff married with C on June 11, 1979, and has maintained marital relations until now.

B. C has met the Defendant of the nationality of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as "China"), who has operated the business in around 1998 as the introduction of E, and the Defendant and C have established internal relations with C from around that time with the Republic of Korea and China.

C. Around January 9, 2000, the Defendant gave birth to D, a child, from China, and C continued contact without finding the Defendant, and eventually, the relationship between C was terminated, and the Defendant raised D by mixing it.

In Busan Family Court Decision 2013Ddan8362, Sept. 25, 2014, which the Defendant filed against C, “A is the natural father of C, and the Defendant is designated as a person with parental authority and custodian of D, and C shall pay to the Defendant KRW 30,000,00 with the past custody expenses of D, and with the future custody expenses from April 2014 to January 8, 2019, as of the end of each month,” and the appeal by C (Supreme Court Decision 2015Meu9040) and the final appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2015Meu90, Mar. 11, 2016) against the above judgment were dismissed, and the said judgment became final and conclusive as of March 11, 2016.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant, knowing that C is a spouse, has established a relationship with C and gave birth to C. This constitutes an unlawful act that infringes upon the plaintiff's spouse's rights. Thus, the defendant asserts that the defendant is responsible for compensating for consolation money of KRW 30,000,000 for mental damage suffered by the plaintiff due to the above unlawful act.

In this regard, the defendant was aware that C was a divorced person at that time and had the intention to marry with C, and not only had the relationship with C, but also had the claim of consolation money for the plaintiff's assertion already extinguished by prescription.