1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from September 16, 2019 to December 9, 2020.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 18, 1996, the Plaintiff was a legal spouse who completed the report of marriage with C on January 18, 1996, and was affiliated with C.

B. From September 16, 2019 to September 25, 2019, the Defendant: (a) known that C had a spouse, and (b) took teaching tasks with C around September 25, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 and 9 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination:

A. The act that a third party who is liable for damages causes mental distress to the spouse by infringing on or interfering with the common life of the married couple falling under the essence of marriage and infringing on the rights of the spouse as the spouse by committing an unlawful act with the spouse of the married couple constitutes a tort in principle.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Meu2997 Decided November 20, 2014). According to the foregoing facts, the Defendant, even though he/she is a spouse, committed an unlawful act with knowledge that he/she is a spouse, thereby infringing on the Plaintiff’s communal living or interfering with the maintenance of the Plaintiff’s marital life and infringing on the Plaintiff’s right as his/her spouse. As such, the Defendant is obliged to compensate for mental damages

As to this, the defendant asserts to the effect that the marital relationship between the plaintiff and C was in a de facto distress at the time of institution with C.

However, the establishment of tort caused by the above improper act is denied only in cases where the substance of a married couple’s community life is no longer nonexistent, and the marital community corresponding to the essence of the marriage is not maintained, as it comes to the extent that it becomes objectively impossible to recover, prior to a wrongful act between either the married couple and a third party (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Meu2997, Nov. 20, 2014). As alleged by the Defendant, no evidence exists to deem that the marital community between the Plaintiff and a third party has reached an extent that it is objectively impossible to recover.