1. The Defendant’s KRW 25,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from September 22, 2019 to June 2, 2020, respectively, to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a legal spouse who completed the marriage report with C on March 23, 1990, and has two children between C and C.

B. The Defendant came to know C from around 2010, and even before May 2017, the Defendant committed unlawful acts, such as having been aware that C had been married, and having been in a personal relation with C.

[A] Although the defendant asserts that it is not a relation with C, according to the statements and images of Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 8, and 10, and the voice, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant was in a relation with C, and therefore the defendant's argument is without merit] / The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 11 (including each number if there is a virtual number) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

(a) A third party shall not interfere with a married couple’s communal living falling under the essence of marriage by interfering with a married couple’s communal living by causing a failure of a married couple’s communal living, etc. A third party shall not interfere with a married couple’s communal living falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with the either side of the married couple, and a third party shall not interfere with a married couple’s communal living falling under the essence of marriage by infringing upon or maintaining a married couple’s communal living and by infringing on the right as the spouse’s right to it, in principle,

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014).B.

According to the above facts of recognition, C is a spouse, and the defendant is a spouse with knowledge that C is a spouse, and even if he knows that C is a spouse, it infringes on the rights of the plaintiff's spouse and interferes with the maintenance thereof, thereby infringing on the rights of the plaintiff's spouse. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate for the mental damage

C. Furthermore, with respect to the amount of consolation money that the defendant should compensate, the health team, the marriage life period of the plaintiff and C, the family relationship, and the relationship.