1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 15,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from May 21, 2017 to the date of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a legally married couple who completed a marriage report with C on November 24, 2011, and has one child (the child in 2012) between C and C.

B. The defendant has a limited teaching relationship with C before the plaintiff is married with C.

C. From the end of January 2017, the Defendant began to meet C and each week, and around March 8, 2017, around 2017, the Defendant stayed at the Mana-dong Mana-dong Mana-dong Hostel.

On February 12, 2017, the Defendant entered into a sales contract for the right of sale in the name of the Defendant between the buyer E and the buyer E with respect to the D apartment 111 Dong 1702 in the Seo-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, Incheon. On March 15, 2017, the Defendant entered into a sales contract for the right of sale in the name of the Defendant. On May 18, 2017, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant.

On March 18, 2017, the defendant and C performed the cleaning of the occupancy in the above apartment complex.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 23, 24, Eul evidence Nos. 5 and 6, Gap evidence Nos. 5 and 6 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In principle, the act of a third party making a judgment on the cause of the claim, thereby infringing on a couple’s communal life falling under the essence of marriage or interfering with the maintenance thereof and infringing on a spouse’s right as the spouse, thereby causing mental pain to the spouse, constitutes a tort, and thus, the third party is liable to compensate for damages arising therefrom.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Meu2441, May 29, 2015). Meanwhile, even if a spouse’s unlawful act does not reach a gender relationship, all unlawful act that is not faithful to the duty of mutual assistance among the couple is included therein, and whether it is an unlawful act or not ought to be determined by considering the degree and situation of specific cases.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu5, May 26, 1987). According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant, despite being aware of C’s spouse around March 8, 2017, was sexual intercourse with C.