1. The Defendant’s KRW 20,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from December 22, 2017 to May 31, 2018 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and C are legally married couple who completed the marriage report on November 8, 2011, and two children (D and E) have one child.

B. The defendant is C's work bonus.

C. From September 2016, the Defendant maintained a pro-friendly relationship with C, knowing that C is a spouse due to her marriage, and brought the Plaintiff’s death in Korea, and was pregnant of C’s child around June 2017.

On November 4, 2017, the Plaintiff was aware of the relationship between C and the Defendant only with C, as C and Defendant were viewed as a separate image from C’s mobile phone.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry and video of Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including branch numbers for those with a satisfy number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. 1) Even if a third party of the relevant legal doctrine is liable for damages, it shall not interfere with a marital community falling under the essence of marriage by intervening in a marital life of another person, causing a failure of a marital life. The third party’s act of infringing or interfering with the maintenance of a marital community falling under the essence of marriage by committing an unlawful act with one of the married couple, and infringing the spouse’s rights as the spouse, thereby causing emotional distress to the spouse, constitutes a tort in principle (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). 2) In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, according to the foregoing, the Defendant committed an unlawful act, such as aiding and abetting with C even though he/she is aware that he/she is a spouse of C, and the Defendant committed an unlawful act, such as interfering with the Plaintiff by infringing on or interfering with the Plaintiff’s communal life.

As such, there is a duty to compensate for mental damage suffered by the plaintiff.

B. As to the judgment of the defendant's assertion, the defendant's above act was committed since the marriage between the plaintiff and C had already been completed prior to the dissolution of the partnership.