1. The Defendant’s KRW 30 million and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from May 3, 2016 to June 29, 2017.

A third party to whom a judgment liability is established on the cause of a claim shall not interfere with a married couple's communal living falling under the nature of the marriage by intervening in a marital life of another person and causing the failure of a marital life.

In principle, a third party's act of infringing on or interfering with a couple's communal life falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with either side of the married couple and causing mental suffering by infringing on his/her spouse's right as the spouse.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Meu2441 Decided May 29, 2015, etc.). In full view of the following: (a) each image of evidence Nos. 3, 7, 8, and 12 (including a serial number) of the Plaintiff; (b) the appraisal results in this court’s 2017Kala1008 case; and (c) the overall purport of the argument as to the Plaintiff’s result of the Plaintiff’s Party’s Party’s Party’s questioning, the Defendant sent back the Plaintiff’s non-appellant from September 2015 to January 21, 2016; (d) the same year.

3. 11.1.1. The same year;

4.5. & 4. The same year.

4. On March 19, 2017, the fact that C had been in the Defendant’s residence (No. 402 at the time of departure) and on March 19, 2017 that the Defendant and C had been accommodated in the Felel located in E on March 19, 2017. Thus, from September 2015 to September 2015, the Defendant committed a wrongful act, including a transit with C.

The defendant's above improper act constitutes an act of infringing a couple's community life between the plaintiff and C or interfering with its maintenance, and causing mental suffering by infringing the plaintiff's right as his spouse, and thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for such damage.

With respect to the amount of consolation money that the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff, the specific form and period of the defendant's fraudulent act, the defendant's attitude after the fraudulent act, in particular, the defendant denied the plaintiff's assertion while entering C and Maurel while denying the plaintiff's assertion during the litigation of this case, and the period of marital life between the plaintiff and C, and all the arguments of this case